The city of Jackson, Michigan has a violence problem. At least, that’s what the people there believe and regardless of any statistics may say–though, admittedly, the statistics do agree–that’s what really matters. That means the city is getting a lot of pressure to do something, and we know how that usually goes.
To be fair, the city looked didn’t look to gun control for their answers. Instead, what they looked at was a violence prevention program.
Just minutes after the city passed it, though, tragedy reminded everyone just how ugly it can be in Jackson.
At 8:04 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 15, Jackson City Council approved a plan to take on gun violence in the community.
At 8:39 p.m., the city was again reminded of the pervasiveness of the problem. Less than a mile from City Hall, a 12-year-old boy was hit in the ear by a bullet.
Just 35 minutes later.
The boy was just injured, thankfully, but tell me that doesn’t put the exclamation point on the fact that something needing to be done.
So what is this plan that the city passed?
The program, called Cure Violence, treats violence like a disease, enlisting “violence interrupters” in the community to de-escalate issues and connect at-risk people with needs like housing, jobs and social services. The city will hire five people in the community part time, for the program.
A conglomerate of residents spoke during public comment, pleading for something to be done to stop the violence.
The Cure Violence program passed by the council won’t be put into place until March 2020. Council members noted this community-based program isn’t going to have immediate results and is only a fraction of the solution.
I’ll give them credit for admitting that this won’t change things overnight and it’s not the answer. It’s just part of it. Some people who resort to crime do so from a place of desperation. They need to support a family, so they do whatever they can to do so. Providing a place they can get help without resorting to criminal activity is probably a good thing.
However, I have my doubts about how prevalent those people are.
Much of the problem in America’s cities stem from gangs. Members of gangs who didn’t turn to that life because they needed a job and the local chapter of The Bloods had a “help wanted” sign out front. People join gangs for a variety of reasons, but there’s usually a certain kind of pride shared by gang members. They’re not desperate, they’re thrilled.
That’s where anti-violence programs really need to focus their attentions. Trying to help people get housing and jobs is all fine and good, but what Jackson really needs is to find a way to break up the gangs that run their streets as well. Disrupt their activities so they’re nothing more than a minor nuisance–you’ll never get rid of them for good. Criminal organizations are like cockroaches that way. Just look at the mob, for example–and then you can take your streets back.
Do that and then you don’t have to worry about 12-year-old victims making a point about how out of control violence is in your city.
The post Boy Shot Just Minutes After City Passes Gun Violence Program appeared first on Bearing Arms.
A group of Ohio activists that have been pushing for a ballot referendum on a “universal background check” law for the state say they’re doubling down on their efforts after Ohio Governor Mike DeWine backed away from his previous support in favor of legislation that would increase the penalty and lower the standard to convict someone of providing a prohibited person with a firearm. Among those speaking out in favor of the proposed “universal background check” referendum at a press conference today was Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, who has become outspoken in favor of all sorts of gun control laws after the shooting in her city earlier this year that involved a firearm that was legally purchased with a background check conducted at the time of sale.
Whaley made it clear Wednesday that she believes DeWine’s plan doesn’t go far enough to curb gun violence.
“The only answer is stronger limitations on access to guns,” she said.
The bad news for Mayor Whaley is that a “universal background check” law doesn’t actually limit access to guns. Studies have shown that, even in California, background check laws are readily ignored by criminals, and similar laws in states like Washington and California have been put on the books only to see violent crime increase, without any increase in background checks being performed. Nonetheless, Whaley wants voters in Ohio to approve the law via a 2020 ballot measure, and she’s got company in her quest.
Ohioans For Gun Safety, the group backing the effort, has already collected about 20,000 of the 132,887 signatures from Ohio voters needed to force state lawmakers to consider the measure, according to Joe Sprague, a volunteer with the group. If, as expected, the Republican-dominated legislature fails to pass it, advocates could collect another 132,887 signatures to place the item on the 2020 statewide ballot.
Ohioans For Gun Safety spokesman Dennis Willard says his group will soon deploy both paid petition collectors and volunteers to gather the required signatures by late December, the deadline to make the 2020 ballot.
In addition, the Ohio chapter of Moms Demand Action is joining the push to collect signatures, representatives of the group said at a Statehouse news conference Wednesday.
The activists have a little more than two months to collect over 100,000 valid signatures, which may prove to be a tough haul. And if the activists fail to get the required number of signatures, what does that say about the real popularity of “universal background check” laws, which tend to poll very well in surveys but face much greater opposition when they’re actually on a ballot. Do people really believe someone should go to jail for 30 days for selling a gun to their brother-in-law or best friend of 20 years? Under this proposal, that’s exactly what’s supposed to happen.
What these activists are proposing is a nearly unenforceable law that does absolutely nothing to stop the illicit transfers of firearms among criminals, but could jail otherwise law-abiding gun owners on the off chance that they were somehow discovered to have transferred a firearm without a background check. Of course plenty of bad ideas turn into bad laws, so we’ll be keeping an eye on the signature gathering process in the weeks ahead.
The post Ohio Gun Control Activists Going All In On Background Check Referendum appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Right now, we’re hearing an awful lot about how gun control groups are pushing hard in various places. They’re even doing it in places where the people they’re targeting aren’t even up for reelection. Clearly, they have money to burn.
Meanwhile, we’re not hearing a lot out of the gun rights groups. Sure, it’s still early in many places, but in some others there’s only a couple of weeks before election day. Surely someone, somewhere, is going on the offensive against the enemies of the Second Amendment, right?
It turns out, someone is.
The Protect Freedom PAC, a political action committee based in Warrenton, Va. to support pro-freedom and pro-liberty candidates, announced that they would run a television ad entitled “The Truth is Out” in Iowa and New Hampshire during the CNN Democratic debate on Tuesday night.
“For a generation, Democrats have talked in generic terms about ‘common-sense gun control’ and promised voters that ‘no one is going to take away your guns.’ The mask has slipped. The leading Democratic candidates for president are all calling for extreme gun control measures, including outright confiscation of legally-purchased firearms by law-abiding gun owners,” Michael Biundo, spokesman for Protect Freedom PAC said.
“Protect Freedom PAC is holding the Democrats accountable, and we believe every Democrat running for every office should answer for the radical positions of their party’s leaders. And frankly, we can’t wait until the debate to find out what these extremists are going to say next. These ads just write themselves,” he added.
Now, the question is, will it do any good?
I’m not sure how well targeted the ad might have been. Running during the Democratic debate doesn’t make it likely the average viewer will change their mind. These are generally people whose minds are already made up on the topic of guns. However, there are likely some undecideds who are watching to see if there’s a Democrat they can tolerate enough to vote for or whether they’ll side with President Donald Trump come next November.
With those voters, it might.
Plus, they are focusing on New Hampshire and Iowa, which are both states that vote early in the primary season and have a strong history of firearm ownership, so they might actually be targeting this perfectly.
Honestly, it could go either way.
Mostly, though, I’m just glad to see someone pro-gun seeming to put up a fight. Right now, most of what we’re seeing is…nothing. I’m sure plenty is going on behind the scenes, but we’re not seeing any of it out here on the ground, which is a problem.
At least now we see something that suggests our rights aren’t being forfeited and are, instead, being fought for.
Even if it doesn’t make a lot of difference with undecided voters or even pro-gun Democrats, it damn sure makes me feel a lot better about the 2020 election season. It’s a signal that we’re not going down without a fight. As it is, the 2020 election may be the most important one in the history of the Second Amendment and we simply can’t let it go without standing our ground.
The post Gun Rights Group Goes On Offensive In Iowa, New Hampshire appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Beto O’Rourke is still trying (and failing) to explain how he would enforce his mandatory compensated confiscation scheme if owners of the AR-15’s and other semi-automatic firearms he wants to ban don’t hand them over to police in exchange for some cash. Speaking to Joe Scarborough, O’Rourke said Wednesday that non-compliance will result in law enforcement coming to your home to take your guns.
.@BetoORourke says if someone refuses to turn in their AR-15s then “in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm…”https://t.co/i0eRK7w63H pic.twitter.com/QdxsBV7Kyr
— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) October 16, 2019
How would law enforcement know who owns banned firearms? Beto doesn’t say, because Beto doesn’t know. Instead, he just keeps repeating his claim that most Americans would abide by the ban and confiscation plan, because most Americans follow the law.
O’Rourke’s rapid response director also chimed in on Twitter to try and salvage her boss’s bad idea.
If someone is publicly, flagrantly stating that they refuse to comply with the law, as in Joe’s scenario, of course there will be legal consequences. This is how it works with any law. Republicans are usually pretty in favor of that concept. https://t.co/iWagmZxQ7h
— Lauren Hitt (@LaurenHitt) October 16, 2019
If Beto really believed that, then why isn’t he calling for federal enforcement of cannabis laws in states that have legalized it despite a federal prohibition? He’s not, because he believes that federal prohibition to be a bad law (for the record, I do too). But Beto can’t have it both ways.
Speaking of having it both ways, O’Rourke’s campaign can’t seem to decide if it’s going to double down or back away from his “Hell yes we’re taking your AR-15” proclamation from a few weeks ago.
Beto would not send officers door to door to collect weapons – just as we do not send the IRS door to door to collect taxes.
— Lauren Hitt (@LaurenHitt) October 16, 2019
Hitt also tried to tie Beto’s plan back to Australia’s “buyback” of firearms in 1996, but had to engage in an outright lie to do so by claiming that Australia “effectively” ended mass shootings with its confiscation program. That’s simply not true. There was a mass shooting in Darwin, Australia earlier this year, as a matter of fact.
O’Rourke is getting a lot of attention for his comments, but it’s not the kind of attention he needs at the moment. When even Joe Scarborough and Anderson Cooper are questioning the practicality of your proposals, and your campaign’s only answer is “I think people will follow the law if we make it”, you’re not helping your cause.
With any law in this country, there are a few people who may not comply, but the overwhelming majority of Americans do voluntarily comply with our laws, even when they don’t like them, and we have every reason to expect that Americans would do the same with a buyback program.
— Lauren Hitt (@LaurenHitt) October 16, 2019
If you really believe that you have every reason to expect that Americans would go along with a buyback program, you really don’t know American gun owners very well. In fact, you don’t know Americans very well. There are plenty of laws that millions of Americans choose not to follow. As I previously noted, O’Rourke wants to legalize cannabis in part because millions of Americans are choosing to disobey that federal statute. What would lead Beto think that millions of Americans would voluntarily hand over their firearms just because the government says so?
For weeks now, Beto O’Rourke has been asked variations of the question “what will you do if people don’t comply?” and he still has no good answer. He’s talked about fines for those who don’t turn their guns in, but can’t say how much the fine would be. Now he says law enforcement would come to your door if you don’t hand over your gun, but he can’t tell you how law enforcement would even be aware of who owns what guns absent a federal gun registry. He can’t even tell you what law enforcement agencies would be tasked with going to homes and telling people to hand over their firearms.
O’Rourke doesn’t have a serious plan. He has a vision, and it’s time he takes off his rose-colored glasses and views things as they are, not how he wishes them to be.
The post Beto: If You Don’t Hand Them In We’ll Take Your Guns From Your Home appeared first on Bearing Arms.
The left and the right in America have very different views of most things. I suppose this is to be expected considering the fundamental disagreements between the two sides as well as the differences that lie somewhere between the two extreme ends of the spectrum.
Take someone like Julian Castro. He’s not a gun guy. He supports things like gun registration and still more licensing requirements for firearms vendors. He’s not a fan of the Second Amendment. That’s clear as day.
Yet he offered an argument against Beto O’Rourke’s mandatory gun buyback rhetoric that I found kind of interesting.
Former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro offered some powerful pushback to other Democrats’ plans to implement a mandatory gun buyback program for assault weapons at tonight’s debate, emphasizing the police power that would be required to make that a reality.
Earlier in the night, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D–Texas) equivocated when asked how he would enforce his mandatory gun buyback proposal while also sticking to his promise that he would not have the police go door-to-door.
Castro, to his credit, pointed out that this is impossible, and that any confiscation efforts would fall hardest on those people who already bear the brunt of police enforcement of so many other laws. “I am not going to give these police officers an excuse to go door to door in these communities,” said Castro.
Now, when one considers how the left tends to view law enforcement, a fact made even worse by the shooting of a woman inside of her own home in Forth Worth, TX, why would they want to have the police in a position to go door-to-door?
Remember, the rhetoric has been that police are racist, that they’re supposedly looking for excuses to gun down minorities.
If you honestly believe that, then why on Earth would you want the police to go from house to house in minority neighborhoods looking for guns? It would be a recipe for disaster.
The fact that Castro is the only Democratic candidate to point out this concern is interesting. One would think that at least one of the other candidates would have made that leap, espoused an understanding that demanding people be disarmed would somehow blowback on minorities at the end of the day, but they didn’t.
You can’t even really explain it away with the idea that since Castro is a minority, he’d get it. Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are too, after all. So was Elizabeth Warren until she was blasted following her DNA test.
One would think at least one of them might have had that thought as well, but nope.
Now, I’m not about to say that Castro is good on guns. As noted previously, he’s horrible when it comes to the Second Amendment. His opposition to door-to-door searches has nothing to do with defending the right to keep and bear arms. If he could find a way to make it so the guns just disappeared, he’d do it and we all know it.
He just can’t.
However, his argument is still an interesting one when you consider the political climate right about now. Issues don’t exist in a vacuum, and Castro’s comments illustrate that quite well. It’ll be interesting to see if mandatory buybacks and other confiscation comments start getting some pushback after this.
The post Julian Castro Opposes Gun Confiscation From Leftist Perspective appeared first on Bearing Arms.
The big topic at last night’s Democrat debate was Donald Trump and impeachment, but the question of gun control and guns did come up while the candidates were on stage in Columbus, and it prompted a somewhat heated exchange between Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg.
O’Rourke, who’s polling around 2% in most surveys, also had a weak 3rd quarter as far as fundraising goes, bringing in less than $5-million dollars. That puts him behind not only frontrunners Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, but even 2nd or 3rd tier candidates like Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang. O’Rourke’s been trying to pick a fight with Buttigieg over the South Bend mayor’s lack of support for a mandatory “buyback” or compensated confiscation scheme, but it was Buttigieg who threw the first verbal punch Tuesday evening.
Buttigieg faulted O’Rourke for failing to explain how his proposal would get weapons “off the streets.” He said Democrats need to instead focus on quickly and effectively pushing less controversial gun safety measures, like universal background checks for gun transactions and so-called “red flag” laws.
“We cannot wait for purity tests,” the mayor said. “We have to just get something done.”
The last comment visibly irked O’Rourke, who pushed back on the idea that his buyback program was part of a “purity test.” He said Democrats should not limit their gun safety proposals based on polls or suggestions by political consultants — a not so thinly-veiled jab at Buttigieg.
“I don’t need lessons from you on courage — political or personal,” Buttigieg, who was deployed to Afghanistan during his time in the Navy Reserve, told O’Rourke during a heated part of the exchange.
He advised O’Rourke to focus his criticism on gun lobby groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), and not fellow Democrats.
The exchange began when CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked O’Rourke what would happen if, under his plan to ban so-called “assault weapons” and demands that Americans turn their guns in to the government in exchange for some cash. O’Rourke hasn’t had a good answer to that question in recent weeks, and he didn’t have one last night either.
“I expect my fellow Americans to follow the law,” the Texas Democrat responded. “The same way that we enforce any provision, any law that we have right now. We don’t go door-to-door to do anything in this country to enforce the law.”
Unsatisfied with the answer, Cooper continued to press O’Rourke, asking him how he would ensure that all owners of guns subject to his mandatory buyback initiative agreed to turn in their weapons. The CNN anchor floated the scenario of a gun owner refusing to participate in the proposal.
“If someone does not turn in an AR-15, an AK-47 — one of these weapons of war — or brings it out in public and brandishes in an attempt to intimidate, as we saw when we were at Kent state recently, then that weapon will be taken from them,” O’Rourke said. “If they persist, there will be other consequences from law enforcement. But the expectation is that Americans will follow the law.”
There is really no good reason to think that millions of Americans are going to comply with O’Rourke’s proposal. Never before in American history have citizens been told to turn their property over to the government because Uncle Sam’s declared their property to be illegal. Even during Prohibition Americans who legally possessed their alcohol when the 18th Amendment went into effect were able to keep their booze. What Beto is demanding is unprecedented in American history, and I think there’s enough disobedience in our national DNA that O’Rourke would be disappointed with the results if he were every to put his confiscation plan in to effect.
Just look at the lack of compliance with New York’s SAFE Act provisions requiring gun owners to register their semi-automatic long guns with the state, or the lack of magazines turned in under New Jersey’s magazine ban. Heck, look at the number of Americans that are using cannabis despite a federal prohibition. In fact, Beto O’Rourke wants to legalize cannabis and expunge the records of anyone arrested for low-level cannabis possession charges precisely because there are so many people who refuse to follow that law. Yet Beto thinks (or hopes) that it’ll be different with guns somehow. It won’t, but O’Rourke simply can’t acknowledge that fact because he doesn’t really have a plan if millions of Americans say “Hell no, you’re not” in response to his “Hell yes, we’re taking your AR-15” demand.
So far O’Rourke hasn’t qualified for next month’s debate, and will need a big boost in the polls to get there. I don’t think he did himself any favors last night. While he came off as passionate, he also came off as unrealistic and unprepared to address fundamental questions about how his proposal would work in the real world, not just his imagination.
The post Buttigieg, Beto Jab At Each Other Over Compensated Confiscation appeared first on Bearing Arms.
If you have guns and children, you need to have a gun safe. That’s standard advice across the gun community. We routinely tell people who have children that they need to secure their firearms and keep them out of the hands of their kids when unsupervised.
For some, that might not be a particularly great safe, but any safe is better than no safe, right? After all, gun cabinets are also available, and while they’re not ideal, they’re usually sufficient for keeping guns out of curious hands.
Well, it seems that the mother of a child who broke into her gun safe or cabinet in order to attempt a mass shooting is now facing a whole host of felonies.
An arrest warrant was issued on Tuesday for Mary York, the Wayne County, Indiana, parent whose son, then-14-year-old Brandon Clegg, stormed his middle school in December 2018 with a pistol and shotgun in an effort to slaughter classmates before turning the weapons on himself.
York, 43, was charged with six felonies relating to child endangerment, as Clegg was often left unsupervised overnight while an ineffective gun locker was stowed in the basement containing several firearms. Clegg had struggled with mental health issues for several years before deciding to attempt a mass shooting at Dennis Middle School in Richmond, where he killed himself once confronted by police, according to a law enforcement affidavit.
An “ineffective gun locker” was in the basement? What defines an “ineffective gun locker?”
Well, it’s the fact that the kid was able to break into it.
The night before the planned massacre, Clegg filmed himself on a cell phone, stating his desire to murder classmates at his school over alleged instances of bullying. He is seen prying open the gun cabinet, which only took a “brief amount of time,” and retrieving a .45 caliber pistol and bolt action rifle. Clegg would use these weapons to force his mother’s then-partner, Kelly Connor, at gunpoint, to drive him to the school the following day to perpetrate the attempted massacre.
Now, I’m not going to say the mother is “mother of the year material” here. Leaving a 14-year-old home alone overnight isn’t the best move.
Further, there’s evidence that she didn’t seem to take the young man’s homicidal or suicidal ideations seriously.
However, are those felony-worthy offenses? Hardly.
It should be noted that Indiana does not have a mandatory storage law, so there doesn’t appear to be a legal requirement for her to secure her weapons in any manner so far as I can tell.
If York were being charged with child endangerment simply for leaving the boy home alone overnight, I’d be in complete and total agreement. While some 14-year-olds may be mature enough to be trusted at home by themselves overnight, most aren’t. The law is the law, and most parents would recoil at the mere idea that she left her child at home.
The problem, though, is that the presence of a gun storage device that someone figured wasn’t up to snuff is part of the claim of child endangerment.
This is problematic for any gun owner. If this is allowed to stand, anyone who has a gun safe potentially accessible to a minor could face similar charges if they leave their teenager home alone for a period of time. York’s guns were basically stolen from her after her son broke into the cabinet. If anything, she’s the victim here. Why is she being charged?
Unfortunately, we’re now living in a world where gun owners can be demonized with impunity, which is what’s happening here.
While York may have had her guns secured in a less than an ideal storage device, that’s hardly relevant. They were locked up. Even the police acknowledge the boy had to pry it open, which means an attempt was made in a state with no such requirement.
Where the hell is the felony in that?
The post Indiana Mother Charged With Felonies After Son Breaks Into Gun Safe appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Last week, I took Golden State Warriors’ coach Steve Kerr to task over his anti-gun remarks. Honestly, I’d given the guy a pass for a while because his father had been shot to death and he’s a basketball coach, not someone who really has a say over our lives.
However, he was also trying to deflect after being questioned about China, an ongoing scandal within the NBA circle.
As Washington Free Beacon‘s Steven Gutowski notes, this is a pattern among leftists in the midst of a scandal.
Kerr did not elaborate on why he believes the civilian right to own certain rifles or the criminal use of firearms constitutes a human rights abuse, but his pivot to the issue as he and his league sought to defuse a mounting scandal is just the latest example of progressive figures touting their support for gun control as they seek to defuse scandals that have supporters across party lines.
Others include Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, film producer Harvey Weinstein, and Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.).
In the midst of a scandal sparked by revelations that he had dressed in blackface in his late 20s, Trudeau said he would institute a new gun ban if reelected later this month.
Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) and attorney general Mark Herring (D.) followed a similar strategy in their first major policy remarks after their own blackface scandals. Northam apologized earlier this year for appearing in a picture found in one of his yearbooks that featured a man in blackface and another in a KKK robe. In the subsequent uproar, Herring admitted that he too had worn blackface.
Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax, also a Democrat, appeared alongside Northam and Herring in their first major post-scandal press conference. It was also Fairfax’s first significant political appearance since being accused of sexual assault by two women.
As Gutowski noted, even #MeToo catalyst Harvey Weinstein tried this trick shortly after revelations surfaced of his nefarious deeds.
It didn’t work out nearly as well for Weinstein.
Yet the question is, why is this the issue they pivot to when faced with a scandal? Especially since Weinstein did it first and it didn’t work out worth a damn for him.
The question really boils down to two things. One is the perception of one’s ability to do anything about guns. Weinstein’s gambit didn’t work particularly well because he was part of Hollywood, not Washington. All he could do is try to raise money and pressure politicians. Since he was already accused of pressuring people to do things, it didn’t play well for him.
The other is timing. Weinstein tried this in the pre-Parkland world.
Trudeau, Northam, and Fairfax, however, get a pass in part because their misdeeds came after Parkland and all three are involved in passing legislation to some degree. They can deflect the scandal because they can, in theory, have an impact on gun laws in their states or nations.
Anti-gun voices in the media are like ADHD squirrels. They see gun control as a shiny object and immediately become distracted with whatever there was before, so they ignore the very real scandal and focus on the new effort.
It worked quite well for Northam who went from barely holding onto his seat to having the media be so sympathetic over the evil Republicans thwarting his sincere gun control efforts following Virginia Beach that weren’t motivated by him having paraded around in black face back in the day.
So what good has it done Kerr? Probably not much. Kerr’s saving grace right now is that LeBron James stepped deeper into the crap than he did. When the league’s biggest star says something this stupid, someone like Kerr gets more of a pass.
Again, the media is an ADHD squirrel and King James just pulled out the shiny object.
Atatiana Jefferson, the Fort Worth woman shot and killed in her own home by Fort Worth police officer Aaron Dean, had grabbed her gun and was looking out the window after hearing a disturbance outside, according to her 8-year old nephew. The boy was playing video games with his aunt when she was shot by Dean, who was outside the home after officers were called to check on the residence by a neighbor who was concerned about the front door being open. Dean, who’s now been charged with the murder of Jefferson, may try to use this fact in a criminal trial, but both the police chief and the mayor of Fort Worth have been vocal about Jefferson having every right to be armed in her home, particularly if she was concerned about a prowler outside.
Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus said at a news conference Tuesday that it “makes sense that she would have a gun if she felt that she was being threatened or there was someone in the backyard.”
That sentiment was echoed by an attorney for Jefferson’s family. Lee Merritt said Jefferson had every right to defend herself. The officers did not announce themselves as law enforcement.
“It’s only appropriate that Ms. Jefferson would have a gun,” he said at a news conference Tuesday, noting that the gun was legally owned and she had a license to carry it.
Merritt accused the Fort Worth Police Department of providing a defense for Dean by writing that Jefferson had pointed a gun at the window before Dean fired.
Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, speaking at a news conference a day earlier, said the gun was irrelevant.
“She was in her own home,” the mayor said of Jefferson. “She was taken from her family in circumstances that are truly unthinkable.”
The truly important facts here are that Dean didn’t identify himself as a police officer, and the fact that Jefferson had every right to have a firearm in her home and in her hand as she investigated a noise outside. The chief is absolutely correct when he says that it was “only appropriate” for Jefferson to be armed.
Nobody has all of the facts in this case, and I won’t pretend to know what was going through Officer Dean’s mind when he saw Jefferson. I just know that a series of tragic mistakes and decisions led to the death of an innocent woman in her own home, and justice must be done.
I don’t think the actions of Aaron Dean mean that every cop is a bad cop, or a racist, or would kill someone in their own home. Sadly, there are going to be folks making that exact argument, just as there will be those making the argument that while Dean may have made a mistake, it doesn’t amount to a crime. There may even be some folks trying to claim that Dean had every right to perceive Atatiana Jefferson as a threat, though thankfully I haven’t run across that argument personally.
What I do know is that you shouldn’t be shot and killed by a police officer in your own home when your neighbor calls for a welfare check. I know that me carrying a gun in my home should not be cause for a police officer to shoot me through my window. And I believe, though I do not know for certain and I am well aware of the failures of the criminal justice system, that justice can and will be done here.
The post Atatiana Jefferson Was Armed When She Was Killed In Her Home appeared first on Bearing Arms.
I’m not a black man.
That apparently matters in this day and age, so I just want to put that out there so there isn’t any confusion.
As such, I know that any statements I make about why a black person should or shouldn’t support something would be suspect. After all, I’m a white dude from the South. We all know what that stereotype is like, now don’t we?
However, I do happen to think that black people really shouldn’t support gun control. Granted, I don’t think anyone should support gun control, but especially the black community. Yet being a white guy, there are those would would suspect ulterior motives from me.
So, don’t listen to me, then. Listen to Carl Jackson, a black man, on why blacks shouldn’t support gun control. Ever.
Given America’s history with slavery, black people should be the biggest advocates for the Second Amendment. Guns equal freedom!
Despite the mantra from the left, there’s no such thing as an “assault rifle.” It’s a term they invented to make guns sound scary, and it works. I prefer to call semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15 by their proper names: “anti-dictator rifles,” “self-defense rifles” and sporting rifles. They’re available for purchase to all law-abiding citizens of age, as they should be. Blacks should be skeptical of any smooth-talking politician that claims he or she wants to keep us “safe” by confiscating guns or banning so-called “assault weapons.” Guns have the last say in determining a free society from an enslaved one. That’s why the Second Amendment is so important.
Democrats have been selling gun control in the black community as long as I can remember. They play on our fears because they want to control us.
No one wants to see senseless murders committed by thugs with guns. But we can’t allow Democrats to blur the line between criminals that commit violent gun crimes and law-abiding gun owners that simply want to defend their lives and property from tyrants and criminals.
Democrats and their allies in the media often ignore the high gun-crime rates that exist in their own Blue cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore, despite having the strictest gun control laws in the country. Furthermore, they rarely mention that the overwhelming amount of violent gun crimes are suicide, drug and gang related. Mass shootings are a big problem, but they’re a tiny percentage of annual gun crimes. Also, as we learned with the Parkland shooter, plenty of warning signs were ignored. Therefore, we can deduce that mass shootings have the potential to be prevented when people speak up, and existing laws are enforced. By sensationalizing these tragedies, Democrats have convinced too many blacks that guns are evil instead of the criminals that use them for ill purposes.
Honestly, go read the whole thing. Jackson nails a lot of points I’ve also considered and even made through the years, only to have those same points dismissed simply because I’m white.
Folks, when it comes to civil liberties, the only “black” or “white” should be the text of the laws preserving those freedoms. They should apply equally to everyone and, now at least, they do.
Yet we find an incredible push by the anti-gun forces to remove those civil liberties with laws that will most likely impact the black community harder than the rest of the nation. They’re likely to bear the brunt of these new laws’ failures.
My hope is that they’ll listen to Mr. Jackson.