This is a critical time for our right to keep and bear arms. Never before have American gun control activists been so emboldened. From gun bans and confiscation to the tracking of gun owners’ ammunition purchases (not to mention licensing and registration schemes), a constitutional right is being treated as if it is a privilege. Even worse, Americans who dare to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights are being otherized by the news media, politicians, celebrities, and anti-gun advocates. If they can’t repeal the right to keep and bear arms, they’ll do everything they can to de-normalize it.
As the new editor of BearingArms.com I want to expose those attempts at delegitimizing our constitutional rights and the Americans who exercise them, but that’s only half the battle. We need to tell the stories of the countless men and women who are fighting to not just keep our rights secure, but to make them stronger than ever. From courtrooms to boardrooms, in tree stands and in state capitols, there are millions of us who aren’t just bearing arms, but are bearing witness to the power of self-defense, of hunting, of competition, and even the therapeutic benefits of shooting. It’s up to us to tell and share these stories, and we will.
I’ve had the privilege of covering the 2nd Amendment on a daily basis for fifteen years now, both behind a microphone and in print, and I’m incredibly excited to be able to continue that mission here at BearingArms. I’ve been a friend of Bob Owens and Jenn Jacques, the previous editors here, and consider it an honor to occupy the same position they’ve both held.
If you’ve listened to my show Cam & Co. at all, you know that I’m a happy warrior. The Los Angeles Times once said I deliver alarming news in a “calm and steady voice”, and I’m okay with that description. Much of the news for 2nd Amendment supporters these days is alarming, to be honest, and it’s true that I’m not much of a yeller or a screamer. I’m always willing to engage the other side in an honest conversation or open debate, even if they’re often reluctant to reciprocate.
I’m also looking forward to continuing the many conversations I’ve had with activists and advocates on our side. I’ve always said that if, after listening to my show, I was the smartest person you heard then I failed the audience. It’s not my job to bloviate for the sake of my ego, but instead to bring you accurate and honest information from legislators, attorneys, firearms instructors, gun store owners, and grassroots activists. I can’t promise there won’t be the occasional bit of bloviating, but I’ll keep it at a minimum.
I’d like to say thanks to the fine folks at Salem for giving me this opportunity, to my new colleague Tom Knighton, as well as to my former colleagues and continued friends that I’ve had the privilege of working with over the past 15 years. To all those who’ve been a part of the “Company” and a genuine community over the years, welcome to our new home! I’m ready to get back behind the microphone in the very near future, and I’m excited about the opportunities ahead.
Townhall Media/Beth Baumann
Safe storage laws are laws that sound good on paper, especially if you don’t know anything about firearms or self-defense, but in practice creates all kinds of problems. Of course, communities that adopt so-called safe storage laws rarely give a flying flip about what difficulties they cause for much of anyone. They have to be seen as “doing something.”
That’s probably at least part of what’s driving an effort in San Diego, California to pass such a law.
San Diego City Attorney, Mara Elliott has asked the City Council to consider a draft ordinance that would require mandatory locked storage of firearms in the home and would propose a conflicting law regarding the reporting of lost or stolen firearms. Ms. Elliott works closely with gun control advocates in the City and made a strong effort to justify her request for the City to take action at the June meeting of the Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee. While the Committee was divided on the issue, the proposal did get enough votes to put it before the full City Council for consideration.
CRPA has submitted a letter of opposition to the City Council outlining all of the missed considerations and statistics showing that mandatory storage laws do not keep people safe and are ineffective in accomplishing the goals outlined by the City Attorney. The City Council will consider the draft resolution on Monday, July 15, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Administration Building, Council Chambers, 12th Floor, 202 “C” Street, San Diego, CA, 92101.
Of course, if you’re in San Diego, I encourage you to attend the meeting and make your voice heard.
Not only are safe storage laws horrible at accomplishing the goals in question, but they also make personal defense more difficult. If you hear the sound of glass breaking, the last thing you need to do is be fumbling with a lock of any kind.
Now, I’m an advocate of locking your guns up if they’re not in use. I just have a different definition of “in use” than someone like the San Diego City Attorney. Keeping a handgun in the nightstand or an AR-15 by the door in case someone decides that locked doors somehow constitute an invitation to enter your home counts as “in use” by my standards.
I somehow doubt Mara Elliott feels the same way.
Laws like this sound good to people who don’t know anything about the subject. After all, why not keep the guns locked up? You can always get to them if you need them, right?
Unfortunately, when the adrenaline is kicking in during a home invasion, fine motor control falls apart. Guess what you need to use to manipulate a lock? That’s right, fine motor skills. That’s why laws like this are wrongheaded to an extreme. They’re crafted by people who think they understand the issue and rarely ever do. Further, they don’t want to listen to people who have researched this or even experienced it. They think they know better, despite all evidence to the contrary.
If you’re someone affected, show up and make sure your voice is heard. I don’t know that it’ll stop the law, but it might, and you already know what happens if you don’t try.
AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File
New Zealand isn’t the United States. While the nation may understand a lot of our pop culture references and things like that, New Zealanders aren’t Americans. They have a different history, a somewhat different culture. Their national identity doesn’t stem from a revolution where they threw off the yoke of tyranny from the greatest power in the world to gain independence.
Despite that cultural identity of defiance against tyrannical authorities, though, New Zealanders aren’t bending over to comply with new gun control laws. Few turned in their weapons during the initial period.
According to the AP’s reporting, not many more were waiting to be reimbursed for turning them in, either.
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — Dozens of Christchurch gun owners on Saturday handed over their weapons in exchange for money, in the first of more than 250 planned buyback events around New Zealand after the government outlawed many types of semi-automatics.
Police said they paid more than 430,000 New Zealand dollars ($288,000) to 169 gun owners during the event. The money was paid directly into the bank accounts of gun owners.
Police said at least 14,000 guns around the country are banned under the new legislation. There are an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand and 250,000 licensed gun owners.
Under the buyback scheme, gun owners are compensated between 25% and 95% of the pre-tax price of a new gun, depending on the condition of their weapon.
People who own guns that are not banned under the new laws can also turn over their weapons during the amnesty, although they won’t get any compensation. Police said a half-dozen such weapons were turned in during the Christchurch event.
Now, I’ll at least give the New Zealand government kudos for trying to make the payment enticing for those who are going to turn in their guns. Most American buybacks are a flat rate, which does nothing to encourage anyone to do anything except dump guns used in crimes.
That said, only 169 guns were turned in? Seriously?
Christchurch was ground zero of the massacre that sparked this law. One would think this would be the biggest push and would get the most turned in.
Meanwhile, there are still Americans who think we can and should kick off a similar style ban-and-buyback scheme here. Do they really think that American gun owners would comply at even a similar rate? If so, they’re deluding themselves.
We’re Americans. We were born out of defiance and struggle. Our cultural heroes said things like, “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead,” and “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” We don’t roll over and accept things like that. Look at what happened in New York with regard to the SAFE Act, and New Yorkers are theoretically more likely to comply than someone in the Deep South or Midwest.
Maybe this would give the anti-gun activists pause if they allowed themselves to think about it. All it would do is turn millions of Americans into criminals.
The post New Zealand’s Gun Buyback Not Off To Banging Start appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Paul Kitagaki Jr./The Sacramento Bee via AP
One of the many issues that divide us in this country is Antifa. Most normal Americans consider Antifa to be domestic terrorists or a group well on its way to becoming so. Even many on the Left are growing concerned with the group’s tactics.
On the other hand, far too many on the Left are supportive of the gang’s antics. They seem to believe violence is speech, all while saying speech on the Right is violence.
For a while, I’ve been saying that it was only a matter of time before someone got killed. Some would argue that such a prophecy was already met in Charlottesville when a progressive activist was run over by a car driven by an alt-right supporter.
When an Antifa member is killed assaulting an ICE detention facility, however, there’s no discussion to be had.
The police fatally shot a man who was attacking an immigration detention center in Tacoma, Wash., on Saturday morning, the authorities said.
The man, who was armed with a rifle, was throwing unspecified “incendiary devices” at the Northwest Detention Center, according to a police statement. The man, identified by officials on Saturday afternoon as Willem Van Spronsen, 69, of Vashon Island, Wash., continued throwing lit objects at buildings and cars, the statement said.
“One car was fully engulfed in flames,” said Officer Loretta Cool, a spokeswoman for the Tacoma Police Department.
Mr. Van Spronsen also attempted and failed to ignite a commercial-sized propane tank attached to the center, said Shawn Fallah, the resident agent in charge of the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility.
“This could have resulted in the mass murder of staff and detainees housed at the facility,” he said. “These are the kinds of incidents that keep you up at night.”
Now, in fairness, I don’t think he would have killed the detainees. He was probably thinking he would free them, set them back out into the world. Some might have been killed, but not intentionally. Van Spronsen had an agenda, and killing detainees would have worked against that agenda.
Killing the entire staff of the facility, however, was probably part of the plan.
Instead, he was killed by police. It was only a matter of time before things escalated to this point, and I’m unsurprised it has. This is what happens to terrorists.
However, will they be considered as such? That’s the question Matt Vespa over at Townhall asks. He also collected a few tweets that we should probably take a look at.
Seattle Antifa Action has posted a eulogy & the ICE firebomber’s alleged manifesto on its Facebook page that was sent to friends before the attack. In it, he allegedly wrote: “I am antifa, I stand with comrades around the world…” pic.twitter.com/4rTDYDu0Xb
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) July 14, 2019
So Antifa just took its first step toward becoming a domestic insurgency. https://t.co/ua7hiR87jL
— Robert Tracinski (@Tracinski) July 14, 2019
It should be noted that Andy Ngo was brutally assaulted by Antifa just a couple of weeks ago. This certainly looks like an escalation.
But is this the beginning of continued escalation? When a Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire at congressional Republicans at a charity baseball practice, there was a concern we’d see more of the same, yet we didn’t. Not yet, anyway.
Of course, this is different. For one thing, few were hailing the shooter as a hero and martyr. Some were, but not many. This time, Antifa groups are holding him Van Spromsem as one.
My money is on expecting more. I also expect a diversity of targets. In other words, if you’re not carrying, you’d best start if at all possible. If not, well…I won’t tell you to break the law and carry anyway. However, I’d rather spend time in jail than an eternity in a coffin.
The post Antifa ‘Activist’ Killed While Attacking ICE Detention Facility appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Audrey McAvoy
Hawaii sure looks like a beautiful place, but there’s no way in hell I’d live there.
After all, why would I want to live somewhere where gun owners are treated like criminals? That’s just how Hawaii rolls when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment. It seems they don’t consider the right to keep and bear arms as anything beyond a suggestion – at best.
As if to prove that, local lawmakers have now implemented some new draconian rules for their state.
Hawaii Gov. David Ig has signed new laws forbidding those under age 21 from bringing guns into the state and made it easier for authorities to seize firearms without a trial. The bills included SB 600 and SB 1466, both of which passed the deep blue state legislature with ease.
Designed to prohibit individuals who are less than 21 years of age from bringing any firearm into the state, SB600 sets a minimum age threshold for those who wish to take their guns with them on a move to Hawaii. Currently, there is no minimum age for those who wish to bring guns into the state and even aliens can visit with firearms for the purpose of target shooting and hunting.
Police in Hawaii, under SB 1466, will be given a new tool in the form of “Gun Violence Protective Orders” which can be used to temporarily seize the firearms of someone that a third party has petitioned the court to consider possibly dangerous.
The new orders, part of a nationwide push for so-called “red flag laws” by national anti-gun organizations such as Everytown and the Brady Campaign, would allow for co-workers, educators, medical professionals or family members of an individual thought to be at risk of hurting themselves or others to ask a family court in the state for a GVPO. If granted in a hearing that doesn’t require the subject of the order to be present, the individual would have their gun rights suspended for a year.
While the subject of the order could request a further hearing to get their guns back — with the burden of proving they do not pose a significant danger by possessing firearms — the individual that applied for the order can also ask to have it extended for more than a year.
Neither of these bills represents a good thing for the citizens of Hawaii, though most would be hardpressed to recognize that fact.
In particular, their red flag law is particularly problematic. Frankly, denying someone their rights without due process should be something we universally uphold as wrong, and that’s precisely what this law does. It takes away a person’s guns because someone says they think that person poses some kind of a risk. Then the onus is on the individual to prove that assessment is wrong.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how our rights are supposed to work. Especially since many of those who can make the request are laymen and women who may not understand who actually represents a threat and who just makes them uncomfortable. For some, knowing a person owns a firearm is enough of a reason for them to label that person a risk. Meanwhile, that person would then have to prove they’re not one, which goes against the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. If they fail, the individual who initiated the order could ask for it to be extended to more than a year.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Hawaii sure is a beautiful state, but they’ve got an ugly core that can’t be ignored.
The post Hawaii Implements New Gun Rules, Including One Making Seizure Easier appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office
I have a lot of respect for police officers. I was raised by one, after all. Law enforcement is a noble profession and one worthy of at least a degree of respect.
That being said, there are few things I hate more than a corrupt cop. That’s the only way to describe someone who plants evidence on numerous people to make arrests.
Now, a deputy who did just that is facing a century in prison.
A former North Florida Sheriff’s Deputy was arrested and charged with planting illegal drugs on unsuspecting motorists on Wednesday.
The strongest evidence in the case is the Deputy’s own body camera footage.
In February 2018 Deputy Zachary Wester pulled over Teresa Odom.
He said her brake lights didn’t work. He then asked if Odom would consent to a search of her vehicle.
The Deputy’s body cam video showed a white substance in his hand as he prepared to search. The drugs ended up in Odom’s purse, before he arrested her despite her cries that the drugs didn’t belong to her.
Months later prosecutors discovered the video. Wester was suspended then fired.
119 cases in Jackson County were dismissed soon after.
If convicted on all counts, the fired Deputy faces more than 100 years in prison.
When he was arrested, the deputy was allegedly found with drug paraphernalia on his person.
The problem here is that at least 30 people have come forward, arguing that Wester did the same thing to them. People spent time in jail, time on probation, lost their gun rights, lost their families, and endured many other things, all because Wester pulled this crap.
Why did Wester allegedly do this? The article doesn’t say. My guess is that making a lot of drug arrests made him look like a super cop, or he simply took pleasure in ruining the lives of innocent people.
Regardless, this is a serious issue. Not only does it negatively impact law-abiding citizens, but makes the entire law enforcement profession look bad. Hell, it affects the public at large.
Now, it’s up to the courts to throw the book at him (if convicted, that is), and it seriously needs to. This is a golden opportunity to remind the public that police officers should be held to a higher standard. I’d love for him to get 100 years in prison following a conviction. I’d love for him to never taste free air again. Stuff like this? Framing innocent people? It needs to end.
Wester’s sentence could well serve as a warning to any other officers willing to cross that line, a way to let them know that if they do something like this, there’s hell to pay.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure that will happen. It sure seems like a lot of corrupt cops are getting let off on things they definitely shouldn’t have. It’s nothing new, mind you, but it’s never a good thing.
If we can’t trust the police, then who in the world are we supposed to trust?
The post Florida Cop Busted For Planting Drugs on Drivers, Faces 100 Years In Prison appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
School shootings happen for one reason above anything else: They’re good targets.
Security at schools tends to be a complete disaster. That means, they’re loaded with unarmed targets in a tight, confined space. There are other reasons that I’m not very comfortable listing, but you probably know of other reasons as well.
After any school shooting, we’re told that the only possible solution is more gun control. The media are filled with talking heads saying that if you don’t support gun control, you want to see more kids die.
However, a congressman from Texas has filed a bill that gives the lie to that argument.
The start of a new school year is probably the furthest thing from your child’s mind, but that’s not the case for Texas Congressman Roger Williams (R-Austin).
“We have not done enough up here in Congress to protect our students and our teachers from the problems we’ve had with schools in the past,” Representative Williams told KVUE.
The problems he’s referencing are incidents of mass violence, including the shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston last May and the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida three months before that. These tragedies were the catalyst for Rep. Williams to team up with Parkland Rep. Ted Deutch (D) and file House Resolution 3665, the “School Violence and Mitigation Act of 2019.”
The bill establishes a grant program to pay 100% of the costs for individual campuses to have independent facility security risk assessments, covers 50% of the cost to make safety improvements and requires all schools that take the grant money to install at least one silent panic alarm.
“This is bi-partisan,” Rep. Williams said. “It has nothing to do with gun control, nothing to do with that.”
Of course, for Democrats, that’s precisely the problem.
However, if we’re going to talk about keeping kids safe, something anti-gunners continue to claim is a priority for them, then why not rally behind a bill like this? The truth is that, without making all guns vanish or doing something equally impossible, schools will continue to be a target for maniacs looking for fame.
Hardening the schools and making them less appealing targets, however, can save lives without resorting to infringing on the rights of ordinary Americans.
Look, we’re not about to stop arguing over gun control. I think we all know that.
What we can do, though, is get together on something like this and still disagree as to whether this is enough or not. Even if you think gun control is necessary, you’re deluding yourself if you think that it will somehow make mass shootings disappear entirely. No, they’ll still be with us regardless of what we do in that regard.
So, with that in mind, why not try to, at least, make it so our children won’t be the target? Why is that so unpalatable to some?
Maybe the problem is that they never gave a damn about the kids in the first place.
The post Texas Congressman Files Bill To Harden Schools Against Attacks appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Keith Srakocic
FactCheck.Org exists, in theory, to prevent misinformation. It’s supposed to help people differentiate between fact and fiction, the counter to fake news.
Unfortunately, many on the Right feel it has an inherent left-leaning bias. That may well be true. After all, it does occasionally seem to give the Left’s ideas a bit more leeway than the Right.
Recently, it took aim at a meme that argued a new bill would create a gun registry.
A viral meme falsely accuses five House Republicans of voting with Democrats to create a “firearms registry.” The bill in question specifically prohibits “the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry.”
A gun control bill that passed the House 240-190 earlier this year was largely shepherded by Democrats, who assumed control of the chamber in January.
And while the GOP-controlled Senate is unlikely to consider the bill, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, or H.R. 8, did receive “yea” votes from eight House Republicans, five of whom were co-sponsors of the legislation.
A viral meme that was posted to Facebook in May, and that is making the rounds again, accuses those five co-sponsors of joining Democrats “to institute a firearms registry.”
First of all, federal law, including the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, currently forbids the U.S. from creating a national registry. And the House bill states that “[n]othing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to … authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry.”
The bill would expand the scenarios in which a background check is required for the sale or transfer of a firearm. While current federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks on prospective buyers, the bill would also require background checks before a private sale or transfer between unlicensed individuals, such as some sales at a gun show or online. A number of states already have similar policies in place.
Except, it kind of would.
Now, FactCheck.Org does note that there are some key exceptions. Mostly things like gifts to family members and loans of firearms. However, the bill requires that all transfers not covered by those exceptions be handled like a new firearm sale. In other words, the recipient would have to fill out a Form 4473 and undergo a NICS check.
That’s not a registration, right?
Well, it kind of is.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a very good registration and not a particularly useful one, but that doesn’t mean it’s not one in essence, regardless of what the bill says.
Once every firearm sale has a Form 4473 to go along with it, it’s only a matter of time before every gun not on the black market has a paper trail associated with it. That’s a registry.
After all, it still allows the government to find out who owns what guns. It might not be an efficient way to do it, but it can still be done. All it would take is a law requiring Form 4473’s to be centrally stored and guess what you have? Yet that law would also be argued to not create a registry either.
Now, am I saying that’s what the meme creator intended? Honestly, I have no idea. It wasn’t me or anyone I know, so I don’t have a clue. However, that doesn’t mean there’s not a valid point to be made in that meme either, whether purposefully or by accident.
The question is, does FactCheck.Org even realize this? Is it malicious, or just clueless?
The post FactCheck.Org Misses Key Point In Dismissing Criticism Of Gun Bill appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Gun control activists often latch onto any story of an irresponsible gun owner losing their firearm as proof that law-abiding citizens as a whole are too careless to carry guns. We’re held accountable for every mistake made by anyone who ever carried a firearm legally. Or illegally, even.
Of course, by that logic, even the police shouldn’t be permitted to carry guns.
Deanna Cantrell issued a video apology Wednesday night for inadvertently leaving her gun behind in a stall at the restaurant on Los Osos Valley Road, where she’d stopped to eat lunch at about noon.
She realized her mistake within minutes and went back to get the weapon, but it wasn’t there, a city press release stated.
Cantrell obtained video from the business, located next to Target, that showed a man entering the same restroom minutes after she’d left, according to the city’s press release issued at about 10:20 p.m. Wednesday.
Police are asking the public’s assistance in locating the man who may be in possession of the stolen firearm. He is described as balding, and was wearing a black jacket, lime green and blue striped shorts, and sunglasses.
Cantrell acknowledged her actions were “irresponsible and careless,” adding she has “no excuses for my actions.”
Now, the firearm has been recovered – luckily for Cantrell.
Chief Cantrell’s actions were irresponsible. She, at least, admits as much. As a public servant, she’s held to a higher standard than the average citizen, and for good reason. After all, police officers are empowered to do things that most of us have no business doing.
However, where is the anti-gun outcry? Where are the gun grabbers holding up the chief’s actions as proof that guns can’t be trusted in police officers’ hands?
Oh, there isn’t one? Shocking, I know.
The truth is that there are more guns in the hands of average citizens than there are police officers in this country. Despite that, incidents like this tend to be pretty rare. They happen, yes. However, the firearm community is also quick to condemn this kind of irresponsibility from one of our own. We don’t tolerate it, and we make it a point to use incidents like these to educate our fellow gun owners.
Chief Cantrell screwed up, but her mistake isn’t indicative of every police officer. It’s indicative of her on this given day.
If we’re to be judged by a handful of mistakes–and we definitely are–then shouldn’t police as well?
Of course, there are a handful of people who do want police to be disarmed. That has little to do with gun control and more to do with thug empowerment efforts masquerading as police reform. While those people may also support gun control, it’s not the drive behind their efforts.
No, gun control activists tell us we don’t need guns because we have the police, then use a handful of isolated incidents to argue that we can’t be trusted with guns anyway.
Well, by that metric, neither can the police.
The post California Police Chief Loses Gun After Leaving It In Bathroom appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
NICS checks are often used as a proxy for firearm sales. While it’s an imperfect measurement, it’s about the best we have. While multiple guns can be transferred under a single check, that’s somewhat balanced by the face-to-face sales. Over the years, NICS checks have given us a good clue as to what the gun market looks like at the moment.
And based on what we’re seeing, gun sales are doing quite well.
According to news reports: “The number of background checks in the NICS system has been generally increasing for the life of the system. There are many reasons for this. The general population has been increasing. The number of guns being sold per capita has increased, especially when there have been political threats of gun bans and increased restrictions on gun buying and gun ownership.”
Those are certainly valid reasons, though I don’t think that’s all of them. Further, none of that accounts for this increase at the same time gun manufacturers are struggling.
So what gives?
Well, this is pure speculation on my part, but I think a few things are going on. One is that inventory surplus is still being drawn upon, which means the manufacturers aren’t needed quite as much at the moment. There was a big buildup leading into the 2016 election, as pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to be elected. When she wasn’t, the expected demand for those guns just wasn’t there. That left a lot of guns to sit and wait to be purchased.
Further, some people prefer to sell their used guns through a gun store rather than trying to arrange a face-to-face transfer. With social media rules being what they are, trying to find a buyer can be a pain in the posterior. Dropping a gun off at the gun store and letting them sell it, though, is a lot simpler.
However, if the store sells the gun, they’re going to perform a NICS check, which may give a slight bump to those numbers. Couple that with the fact that if you change your mind and decide to keep the gun, when you pick it up you have to go through another NICS check, and there’s a lot of ways the numbers can skew one way or another.
Another thing that may be contributing to this is the increase in states requiring universal background checks.
While it’s quite easy to bypass universal background checks if you want to, most law-abiding gun owners are just that, law-abiding. They’ll follow the law, even if they think it’s stupid. Because of that, guns that ordinarily wouldn’t have been counted toward these numbers now are.
Regardless of why the Trump Slump is a thing, while NICS checks are increasing, the one takeaway that we should all focus on is that millions of Americans each and every month are embracing the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of anything else, that is something to celebrate.
The post Over 2 Million NICS Checks Each Month So Far This Year appeared first on Bearing Arms.