The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to take up an appeal from a Connecticut state court, allowing a case, brought by the parents of victims and survivors of the Sandy Hook mass shooting, to move forward with their lawsuit against Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used by the Sandy Hook killer to murder a classroom full of first graders and their teacher.
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-case-against-remington-to-proceed">NPR reports</a> that the Supreme Court denied Remington&#8217;s appeal, which focused on a 2005 law prohibiting the victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers for wrongful death and disfigurement. The Sandy Hook parents are using one of the law&#8217;s exemptions, which allows victims to sue gun manufacturers for their alleged unfair and illegal marketing practices, not over the weapons themselves.
The Sandy Hook parents have been trying to sue Remington for years, and several other lawsuits were tossed by lower courts, citing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants gun manufacturers like Remington &#8220;broad immunity&#8221; from civil suits.
This time around, though, attorneys brought claims under a small exemption in the law that concerns weapons marketing under the theory that the Bushmaster rifle &#8220;never should have been sold to the public because it is a military-style weapon. They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut&#8217;s unfair trade practices law when it &#8216;knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings,'&#8221; according to NPR.
<blockquote>In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington &#8220;published promotional materials that promised &#8216;military-proven performance&#8217; for a &#8216;mission-adaptable&#8217; shooter in need of the &#8216;ultimate combat weapons system.'&#8221; They also accuse the company of fostering a &#8220;lone gunman&#8221; narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, &#8220;Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.&#8221;</blockquote>
&#8220;This is a weapon that&#8217;s been designed to inflict mass casualties and, &#8216;you&#8217;re not a man if you don&#8217;t have it.&#8217; That&#8217;s morally reprehensible and, from a marketing perspective, that&#8217;s just wrong and needs to stop,&#8221; one of the plaintiffs told CBS News.
The families also say that Remington marketed the rifle to odd demographics, including marginalized white males, by advertising within video games and in magazines and publications not geared toward hunters, which Remington says are the core consumers of the Bushmaster rifle series.
&#8220;Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/business/remington-sandy-hook-supreme-court/index.html">CNN reported Tuesday morning</a>.
Gun rights advocates contend that the lawsuit, if successful (it&#8217;s still in its very early stages), could provide a backdoor way for gun control advocates to restrict the sale of weapons they deem &#8220;unacceptable&#8221; to own or use, including the Bushmaster and the much-maligned AR-15.
Remington did not have comment on the Supreme Court denial Tuesday morning, but it is probably preparing to handle the case head-on in Connecticut courts. The case now moves to a discovery period, where the Sandy Hook victims&#8217; families will likely information on how Remington made its marketing decisions for the Bushmaster rifle.

US-POLITICS-COURT

Supreme Court Won&#8217;t Take Sandy Hook Case, Will Allow Victims Of Mass Shooting To Sue Gun Makers

Gun Control

Guns

Supreme Court

Far-left Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam announced this week that he will aggressively work to implement extreme anti-gun laws in the state now that Democrats control the state, including confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.
During a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Northam &#8220;mentioned universal background checks, banning the sale of [semi-automatic firearms] and high-capacity magazines, restoring the law that limits purchases to one gun a month, and a red flag law that would empower a court to temporarily remove a gun from a person deemed to be a risk to himself or others,&#8221; The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-gov-northam-starts-making-plans-for-his-new-democratic-legislature/2019/11/06/28f6656e-00b7-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html">reported</a>.
“We will at least start with those,” Northam said.
When asked about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens, Northam responded &#8220;that’s something I’m working [on] with our secretary of public safety,” adding that he will work with anti-gun activists on the issue.
The Washington Free Beacon reported that during the recent election, Democrat candidates were silent on whether they supported Northam&#8217;s extreme gun confiscation plan. The Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/virginia-governor-pushes-gun-bans-mum-on-confiscation-after-dem-victories/">reports</a>:
<blockquote>Gun confiscation and other gun control measures have been part of Northam&#8217;s agenda, but took on increased importance after a picture of two men, one in blackface and the other in KKK robes, was uncovered on Northam&#8217;s page in a medical school yearbook. In his first major public appearance after the scandal broke, Northam called for a special session of the legislature in order to reconsider his gun control package, following the recent strategy used by prominent liberals of pivoting to gun control after brushes with controversy.
Democrats have a strong incentive, in the form of millions in dark money, to implement new gun control laws. In each of the last three election cycles, Everytown for Gun Safety—backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg—and other gun control groups have spent large sums of money backing Democrats. Everytown spent $2.5 million to help push Democrats into the majority in Virginia, while the National Rifle Association spent just $300,000 supporting Republicans, according to CNBC.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Northam is not the only leftist politician who has used the issue of control to distract from a racist blackface scandal.</blockquote>
On September 18, TIME reported that left-wing Canadian leader Justin Trudeau had appeared in numerous racist blackface photos, a scandal that nearly cost him his elected office.
However, just two days after the scandal broke, Trudeau immediately pivoted to pushing for far-left gun control policies, including banning handguns.
Trudeau tweeted, &#8220;Thoughts and prayers are not enough. We will ban all military-style assault rifles, give municipalities the ability to restrict or ban handguns, and strengthen gun control.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en">
Thoughts and prayers are not enough. We will ban all military-style assault rifles, give municipalities the ability to restrict or ban handguns, and strengthen gun control. <a href="https://t.co/NvX0IBtAU5">pic.twitter.com/NvX0IBtAU5</a>
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1175122371218423808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
On Thursday, it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-anti-gun-extremist-billionaire-michael-bloomberg-preps-to-enter-2020-race-report-says">reported</a> that Bloomberg was preparing to run for president in 2020 after seeing Joe Biden&#8217;s campaign falter.
A New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/17/can-bloomberg-take-on-the-nra/bloombergs-gun-control-that-goes-too-far-for-the-average-citizen">analysis</a> of Bloomberg’s gun control views from a few years ago found that his views are far outside anything that is considered to be mainstream:
<blockquote>His flagship bill is New York Senator Charles Schumer’s “Fix Gun Checks Act.” The proposal follows model language from Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” campaign. According to my analysis of the bill, this version of background checks would outlaw loaning a firearm to one’s spouse or sibling for two weeks. Or sharing a firearm on one’s property — such was target shooting with a guest, or loaning a gun to a ranch hand. And sharing guns while target shooting on federal land where it is allowed, such as on National Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management property.
The bill would felonize a couple who are not legally married, but who share firearms at a target range. Or a member of the Army Reserve who is summoned to overseas deployment, and who stored personal guns with a sibling or a trusted friend. Also criminalized is the friend who lends a gun to a stalking victim for a few days.</blockquote>
John Tkazyik, former Mayor of Poughkeepsie in New York, belonged to one of Bloomberg’s gun control groups until he realized how extreme the group was and that their goal was to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. Tkazyik <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140208021735/http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20140205/OPINION04/302050008/Valley-View-Mayoral-group-s-gun-agenda-wrong?nclick_check=1">wrote</a> in 2014:
<blockquote>I’m no longer a member of [Mayors Against Illegal Guns]. Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. And I’m not alone: Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did. MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives. Gun control will actually make a bad situation worse.
…
It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does. [emphasis added]</blockquote>

Ralph Northam

Democrat Controlled Virginia ‘Working’ On Confiscating Guns From Law Abiding Citizens, Governor Says

Virginia

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law&#8217;s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Today&#8217;s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15. By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.
Let&#8217;s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in their 2018 report on Crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles. A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders — 6,603.
What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buyback plan that 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O&#8217;Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating for knife control, hammer control and feet and fist control.
Gun controllers&#8217; belief that &#8220;easy&#8221; gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase. With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here&#8217;s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today? That&#8217;s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.
Let&#8217;s examine some elements of this decline.
If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today&#8217;s America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn&#8217;t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn&#8217;t believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors. During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn&#8217;t believe that we&#8217;re now debating whether teachers should be armed.
Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation&#8217;s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they&#8217;ve eliminated our means to defend ourselves.
Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them. After Fidel Castro&#8217;s demand for gun confiscation, he said, &#8220;Armas para que?&#8221; (&#8220;Guns, for what?&#8221;) Cubans later found out.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Guns.

WILLIAMS: Gun Grabbers Misleading Us

Beto O'Rourke

On Tuesday, a Pennsylvania judge struck down three gun-control ordinances in Pittsburgh that were implemented after the Tree of Life synagogue shooting one year ago. Judge Joseph M. James of Allegheny County said state law “pre-empts any local regulation pertaining to the regulation of firearms.”
Almost exactly one year ago, a gunman murdered 11 worshipers in the attack on the synagogue using a Colt AR-15 rifle and three Glock .357 handguns.
The timeline regarding the ordinances went like this, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/pittsburgh-judge-gun-control.html">The New York Times</a> explained: they were announced in December 2018, as the City Council, resoundingly Democratic, passed the legislation; in January, Allegheny County district attorney Stephen A. Zappala <a style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit;" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wJyzqgcE25t0thSuxMlM9Lo1ETG6CzkX/view">wrote a letter</a> arguing the City Council lacked the authority to pass such laws; in April 2019 Mayor Willam Peduto signed the ordinances into law; and then the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearm Owners Against Crime and Firearms Policy Foundation along with three individuals, filed suit against the city,
In May, the Court of Common Pleas stayed the ordinances.
The three ordinances “regulate the use of assault weapons in public places in Pittsburgh; prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in public places; and allow courts to temporarily seize weapons from a person who is exhibiting ‘red flag’ signs of extreme risk to themselves or others,” as the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/10/29/pittsburgh-gun-ordinances-judge-struck-down/stories/201910290149">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a> noted.
Peduto&#8217;s spokesman, Timothy McNulty, responded to the ruling: &#8220;The city and its outside legal counsel have always expected this would be a long legal fight, and will continue to fight for the right to take commonsense steps to prevent future gun violence.”
Attorney Joshua Prince, who represented the plaintiffs, enthused, &#8220;We are extremely pleased with Judge James&#8217; decision today striking down the City of Pittsburgh&#8217;s unlawful firearm ordinances and signage, which only sought to eviscerate the inviolate right of the residents of the Commonwealth to keep and bear arms and ensnare law-abiding citizens through a patchwork of laws,” as the <a href="http://www.startribune.com/judge-tosses-pittsburgh-gun-laws-passed-after-massacre/564063202/">Star-Tribune</a> reported.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs <a href="https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/04/Anderson-v.-City-of-Pittsburgh-1.pdf">argued</a>:
<blockquote>The City of Pittsburgh has prohibited one of the most common and important means by which its citizens exercise their fundamental right of self-defense. By banning the public possession and transportation of loaded standard-capacity fire magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition, Pittsburgh has violated the rights of its citizens and exceeded its authority under Pennsylvania law.
Worse yet, Pittsburgh has committed this violation without any realistic prospect of diminishing the misuse of firearms or the incidence of horrific mass shootings. Pittsburgh’s ban on the carrying of loaded standard-capacity magazines in public will do nothing to ameliorate these public policy concerns. All it will do is leave law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to attack from better-armed and more ruthless assailants …
What is more, due to the porousness of municipal borders, there is no reason to think that a municipal-level ban would have any more effect in reducing violence by those who ignore the law or use alternative means to commit crimes. And there is even less reason to conclude that Pittsburgh’s ordinance will be effective, for it depends on criminals complying with a legal prohibition on loading magazines that may be lawfully possessed in public when unloaded.
&nbsp;</blockquote>

PA Judge Strikes Down Gun Control Ordinances Implemented After Synagogue Massacre

Anti-Semitism

Pittsburgh

An 84-year-old veteran of the Korean war who also served as a police officer for decades was relieved of his job as a crossing guard and had his guns seized after criticizing a school resource officer (SRO) for allegedly leaving his post during school hours.
Stephen Nichols, who worked as a crossing guard in Tisbury, Massachusetts, was eating at Linda Jean’s restaurant in Oak Bluff and speaking with another patron when a waitress reportedly overheard part of their conversation. As the <a href="https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/11/crossing-guard-relieved-duty-guns-seized/">MV Times</a> reported, Nichols said he was discussing the SRO’s alleged visits to Xtra Mart to get coffee when children came to school in the morning. Nichols said that he told his friend that someone could “shoot up the school” as the SRO was “leaving his post.”
Nichols, who was a Morse Code specialist for the U.S. Army, told the MV Times, “When I was in the U.S. Army, and it wasn’t just me, it’s anybody who’s in the U.S. service, if you are on guard duty for eight hours, you didn’t leave that position. … And I’m just so accustomed to that, that when I see someone who’s supposed to be protecting kids … leave the school unguarded — if you’re on guard duty, you stay there.”
The waitress reported Nichols to the police two days later, prompting Police Chief Mark Saloio and another police officer to relieve Nichols from working as a crossing guard while he was at the job , then going to Nichols’ home and confiscating his firearms license and guns, as the MV Times reported.
Nichols, who said he has been licensed for firearms for over 60 years, told the MV Times that Saloio “told me to hand [the firearm license] over so I took it out of my wallet and handed it to him,” adding that no paperwork was given to him regarding the stripping of his firearms.
Linda Jean’s owner Marc Hanover, who said he’s known Nichols for decades, called the events “absolutely outrageous,” adding that his waitress “overreacted.” Hanover also spoke with Andy Marcus, who was the person Nichols had conversed with, and said Marcus “assured me there was never a threat made.” Marcus called the affair “absurd,” adding that Nichols never threatened the school and that no other employee at the restaurant thought Nichols was threatening the school. Noting that Nichols was a veteran police officer and constable, he concluded, “He loves kids. It’s almost like of all the people … ”
Nichols, a widower for two years who has 11 grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren, concluded, “I would never, ever, ever, harm a child … I just need something to do to get out of the house and I love the kids.
Saloio met with Nichols on Columbus Day to offer his job as a crossing guard back to him. <a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20191021/veteran-criticizes-police-practices-gets-guns-and-firearm-license-seized-by-chief-of-police">NRAILA</a> reported that an attorney who represents Nichols told the MV Times that Nichols intended to file an appeal to secure the return of his firearms.  NRAILA continued, &#8220;Meanwhile, Nichols was informed that his grandson, who manages a Worcester gun shop, is ‘going to be allowed to come down and take the weapons and sell them for me.’ As it stands, Nichols has yet to receive his license or firearms back.”
NRAILA added, “Because there was no proven justification for depriving Nichols of his legally owned firearms, commentators are citing the situation as a cautionary tale against ‘red flag’ firearm seizure laws.”
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Oak Bluffs Harbor

Elderly Vet Has Guns Seized After Criticizing School Resource Officer For Allegedly Leaving His Post

Massachusetts

Veterans

In Tacoma, Washington, a showdown is coming because the city is considering taxing gun sales.
The councilman proposing the measure to be brought up on Tuesday at the city council, Ryan Mello, stated, “I can’t ban assault rifles in the city of Tacoma. I can’t ban certain types of ammo in the city of Tacoma. I can’t require safe storage. There’s a lot I can’t do. The one thing I am not pre-empted from doing is reasonable taxation on firearms and ammunition,” as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/proposed-tax-on-gun-sales-faces-opposition-in-tacoma-wash-11572255002?mod=djemwhatsnews">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.
The legislation would require a $25 per gun sale to fund violence prevention programs.
The Journal noted, “Opponents of the proposal, which would also collect taxes on ammunition, have said it would force gun shops out of the industrial port city of 215,000. In Seattle, lawmakers projected $300,000 to $500,000 a year in gun taxes, but last year received only $77,642 because gun stores moved away.”
Dan Davies, the owner of Mary’s Pistols in Tacoma, told the Journal, “It’ll put us out of business; there’s no ifs, ands or buts about it. They’re punishing innocent people for the deeds of criminals.”
Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of government relations and public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, expressed the worries of gun rights advocates, asserting, “Are we concerned that politicians will try to seek their antigun agenda through taxation? Yes, that’s what this is about.”
Despite the fact that gun stores and gun parts makers have warned they will have to leave Tacoma if the tax is implemented, Mello enthused that the new tax would raise between $30,000 and $40,000 annually each year.
The Journal noted that Cook County in Illinois passed a gun tax in 2013, and Seattle followed in 2015. The Cook County government <a href="https://www.cookcountyil.gov/service/firearm-and-firearm-ammunition-tax">wrote in 2013</a>:
<blockquote>Effective April 1, 2013, as provided in Sections 74-665 thru 74-675, Firearm Tax Ordinance, a tax is imposed on the retail purchase of a firearm in the amount of $25.00 for each firearm purchased … It shall be the duty of every retail dealer to remit and report the tax due on sales of firearms purchased in Cook County on forms prescribed by the Department. After April 1, 2013, the first tax return and payment, if applicable, is due by May 20, 2013. Subsequent returns and payments are due on the 20th day of each month. Returns must be submitted even if no tax is due.</blockquote>
The city of Seattle <a href="http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s3=&amp;s4=124833&amp;s5=&amp;s1=&amp;s2=&amp;S6=&amp;Sect4=AND&amp;l=0&amp;Sect2=THESON&amp;Sect3=PLURON&amp;Sect5=CBORY&amp;Sect6=HITOFF&amp;d=ORDF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2F~public%2Fcbor1.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G">wrote in 2015</a>,
<blockquote>The City finds and declares that gun violence directly affects the City and its residents. Therefore, the City intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, to raise general revenue for the City and to use that revenue to provide broad-based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence and address in part the cost of gun violence in the City.</blockquote>
The city added, &#8220;The tax rate shall be $25 per firearm sold at retail, $.02 per round of ammunition that contains a single projectile that measures .22 caliber or less sold at retail, and $.05 per round of ammunition for all other ammunition sold at retail.&#8221;

Blue Ridge Arsenal Gun Store

Showdown In Washington State: City Considers Taxing Gun Sales

Taxes

Washington

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about the moment at the recent Democratic Party presidential primary debate when Pete Buttigieg destroys Beto O’Rourke for his stance on guns. Video and partial transcript below:
Beto O&#8217;Rourke [is] trying to play into that left lane. Beto’s campaign is falling apart, [and] there is pretty much no reason he should be at this debate anymore. And so he&#8217;s he&#8217;s been trying to signal that he&#8217;s as left as they come over the past few months. This is after a career where he played himself off mostly as a moderate in Congress — and so he obviously doesn&#8217;t believe in anything — but he felt leftism was going to bring him all the way. It looks like that&#8217;s not going to work. 
So one last try, he&#8217;s going to say that we&#8217;re going to undermine the Second Amendment. He&#8217;s going to take away all your guns, going to go door-to-door, take them all away. 
<blockquote>COOPER: How exactly are you going to force people to give up their weapons? You don&#8217;t even know who has those weapons. 
O’ROURKE: Look, we&#8217;re gonna make sure that the priority is saving the lives of our fellow Americans. I think almost everyone on this stage agrees that it&#8217;s not right, and as president, would seek to ban the sale of AR-15s and AK-47s. Those are weapons of war. They were designed to kill people effectively [and] efficiently on a battlefield. 
COOPER: To be clear, exactly how are you going to take away weapons from people who do not want to give them up and you don&#8217;t know where they are? 
O’ROURKE: If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47 — one of these weapons of war — or brings [it] out in public and brandishes it in an attempt to intimidate, as we saw when we were at Kent State recently, then that weapon will be taken from them. If they persist, there will be other consequences from law enforcement. </blockquote>
Other consequences, so we&#8217;re going for it. I&#8217;m Beto! Hell yeah, we&#8217;re going to take your AR-15! We&#8217;re going door to door. We&#8217;re gonna get the cops to come and steal all your guns and completely undermine the Constitution. 
<iframe title="Are Democrats Finally Moderating? | The Michael Knowles Show Ep. 433" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zaEE2pKq3mE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
One thing that really bothers me — his was probably the highlight of the night, in terms of Orwellian language — every aspect of this gun debate is dishonest. So there&#8217;s no such thing as a mandatory buyback. The government didn&#8217;t sell you your gun in the first place, so it&#8217;s not going to buy it back from you. I guess you could try to buy guns from people if you&#8217;re the government, but if it&#8217;s a mandatory buyback, then you ain&#8217;t buying it. It&#8217;s not like it&#8217;s a free exchange where money is changing hands. It&#8217;s the government confiscating your weapons. Mandatory buyback, it’s absolutely outrageous.
Same thing with weapons of war. All weapons are weapons of war &#8230; all of firearm technology advances because of war, because of armed conflict. That is the impetus for improving firearm technology, that&#8217;s been true since the dawn of time and will remain true in the future. 
And then the other one is assault weapon. All weapons are assault weapons. All weapons are assault weapons, they are designed to assault you. If a weapon is not designed to assault you, it&#8217;s not a weapon. Like this leftist tears tumbler is not a weapon because it&#8217;s not meant to assault you — it&#8217;s meant to receive the leftist tears after you have been assaulted by facts and logic. So that language just goes on and on throughout the entire debate. Beto is running on it, it&#8217;s not going anywhere, he probably won&#8217;t even be at the next debate.
Pete Buttigieg, however, sees Bernie&#8217;s going far, hard left, Beto’s going hard left, [and] Liz Warren doesn&#8217;t know exactly where she wants to be. So Buttigieg sees an opening. At the early part of this primary, he was doing pretty well. He was getting some press because he was the reasonable one. He was at least pretending to be a Christian, he was at least pretending to be moderate. He was at least pretending to be a good ol&#8217; boy from the Midwest. And so Buttigieg takes on Beto O&#8217;Rourke head-on, and pretty much wipes the floor with him on the question of guns. 
<blockquote>O’ROURKE: Let&#8217;s follow their inspiration and lead, and not be limited by the polls and the consultants and the focus groups &#8230; we have time to do what&#8217;s right there. 
BUTTIGIEG: The problem isn’t the polls, the problem is the policy. And I don&#8217;t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal. Everyone on this stage is determined to get something done. Everyone on this stage recognizes — or at least I thought we did — the problem is not other Democrats who don&#8217;t agree with your particular idea of how to handle this. The problem is the National Rifle Association, and their enablers in Congress, and we should be united in taking the fight to them. </blockquote>
Poor Beto, you can see it in his eyes. He just thinks, oh man, I totally walked into that. He&#8217;s saying we need the courage to steal people&#8217;s guns and undermine the Constitution, and there&#8217;s Pete Buttigieg, who comes in — he&#8217;s one of two people on that stage who&#8217;s ever served in the military — saying I don&#8217;t need lessons from you about courage. Totally wipes the floor with him.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand! </a>

Beto O&#8217;Rourke

KNOWLES: Beto O’Rourke Placed His Faith In Leftism And Lost

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Leftism

Progressivism

Religion

The warrant for the arrest of Fort Worth officer Aaron Dean for the killing of Atatiana Jefferson, 28, in her home provides details from the account of her 8-year-old nephew, who witnessed the fatal shooting. According to the boy, his aunt was holding a handgun and pointed it at the window after she heard noises outside from the officers inspecting her home in response to a call from a concerned neighbor early Saturday morning.
Police have underscored that it &#8220;makes sense&#8221; that Jefferson would use her gun if she felt she was being threatened by someone in her own home. The lawyer representing the Jefferson family has also noted that she legally owned the gun.
As reported by <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/15/atatiana-jefferson-pointed-gun-out-window-before-fort-worth-officer-killed-her-nephew-told-authorities/?fbclid=IwAR1Lx73SOk32HweII9ruwrS8na_hP0iohR7Ilh/">The Dallas Morning News</a>, the boy told authorities that he was in the room with Jefferson when she was shot and killed by Dean, one of the two officers who responded to a neighbor&#8217;s call expressing concern about Jefferson&#8217;s front door being left open and lights on so late at night.
The boy was playing video games with his aunt when she heard noises outside her home, he said. She took a handgun from her purse and pointed it &#8220;toward the window,&#8221; the boy told forensic investigators. That&#8217;s when Dean yelled, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” then fired a single shot, killing Jefferson.
&#8220;Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus said at a news conference Tuesday that it &#8216;makes sense that she would have a gun if she felt that she was being threatened or there was someone in the backyard,'&#8221; Dallas Morning News reports.
“It’s only appropriate that Ms. Jefferson would have a gun,” said Lee Merritt, the lawyer representing Jefferson&#8217;s family, noting that she had a license to carry the legally owned firearm. &#8220;When you think there’s someone prowling around in the back at 2 in the morning, you may need to arm yourself. That person could have a gun.”
Merritt stressed that Jefferson legally owned the firearm and was licensed to carry it.
After turning in his badge earlier in the day, Dean was arrested on Monday on murder charges. Shortly afterward, the Fort Worth Police Department issued a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/update-fort-worth-officer-arrested-after-shooting-woman-in-her-house">press release</a> providing some details about the case.
“At approximately 6 p.m., Aaron Dean was arrested for the murder of Ms. Jefferson and he has since been booked in Tarrant County Jail,” the release reads. “Our department is working closely with the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office. Our Major Case and Internal Affairs Units are continuing to work around the clock to ensure that no stone is left unturned and justice for Ms. Jefferson’s family and community are served.”
The shooting has sparked outrage from the community, some of the leaders of which suggesting that it may have been racially motivated since the officer is white and Jefferson is black.
Amid the outcry over the shooting, the department released <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/body-cam-video-fort-worth-officer-shoots-woman-in-her-home-after-non-emergency-call">body cam footage</a> on Saturday showing the officers scanning the perimeter of her home using flashlights. After checking a door and some windows, Dean shouts, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” He then fired through a bedroom window. The footage ends with two still shots of a handgun in the bedroom, presumably the one Jefferson was holding in self-defense when she was shot.
The video footage does not show the officer announcing that he is with law enforcement, and the neighbor who called the non-emergency police number says the officers parked around the block so their vehicle likely was not visible from inside the house.
Video below (warning: graphic content):
<iframe title="RAW: Fort Worth police release body cam after officers shoot woman in her home" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xpcV0ODTy0Y?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The badge of a Fort Worth Police officer

UPDATE: Woman Shot By Fort Worth Police Officer In Her Home Pointed Gun At Window

Law Enforcement

Race

Second Amendment

Texas

Violent crime in America, despite experiencing an overall <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls">dramatic decline</a> since the 1990s, has started to <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/25-years-crime-wave-back-republicans-refuse-talk/">surge back</a> over the past few years. Amidst this distressing social trend, alas, America&#8217;s <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/rnc-blasts-kamala-harris-not-pro-criminal-enough/">erstwhile</a> &#8220;law-and-order&#8221;/tough-on-crime political party has been ideologically and financially captured by pro-criminal libertarians who ally with the Left to spout hackneyed, outmoded orthodoxies like the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-dont-let-kim-kardashian-fool-you-america-josh-hammer">alleged (non-)issue</a> of &#8220;mass incarceration.&#8221; The most tangible result of this unholy alliance was the bipartisan 2018 passage of the harrowing First Step Act jailbreak law — a law enactment which President Donald Trump, viewing the <a href="https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191004/he-was-released-early-from-prison-in-february-now-hes-wanted-for-murder-on-federal-hill">murderous early results</a>, apparently already <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/trump-reportedly-regrets-passage-jailbreak-first-step-act-gullible-conservatives-supported/">regrets</a>.
Alas, the leftist/libertarian alliance on &#8220;criminal justice&#8221; issues, just highlighted during last night&#8217;s Democratic Party presidential primary debate when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) touted her work with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on the crime-abetting issue of &#8220;<a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/jailbreak-epidemic-gang-member-released-6k-bail-now-accused-raping-12-year-old-girl/">bail reform</a>,&#8221;continues unabated. Which brings us to prominent libertarian lawyer/legal commentator <a href="https://www.cato.org/people/clark-neily">Clark Neily</a>, who has been on a roll, of late. Neily, who spent years with the rabidly <a href="https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/">pro-judicial power</a> libertarian legal group <a href="https://ij.org">Institute for Justice,</a> now works for the equally <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/proper-judging-means-principled-engagement-not-judicial-deference">pro-judicial power</a> libertarian Cato Institute. Neily&#8217;s title at Cato is &#8220;Vice President for Criminal Justice&#8221; and, based on his recent musings, he appears to embody the zealous leftist/libertarian jailbreak alliance.
The precise target of Neily&#8217;s recent ire is the prosecutor. More specifically, Neily is convinced that far too many prosecutors become federal judges — and that not nearly enough criminal defense attorneys become federal judges. In a highly revealing but nonetheless sober-minded recognition of his core readership for such anti-prosecutorial musings, Neily has published on the subject at both <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/studies/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates">Cato</a> and, just this week, at left-wing <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/too-many-prosecutors-federal-judiciary.html">Slate</a>. The latter piece goes so far as to call for an outright &#8220;moratorium&#8221; on the nomination of former prosecutors to the federal bench.
I am not a former prosecutor. But I do have the benefit of education at a top law school and the experience of serving as a law clerk for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And I believe Neily is severely misguided in his anti-prosecutor crusade.
Crucially, Neily&#8217;s Cato <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/studies/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates#summary-previous-studies">study</a> makes no attempt whatsoever to control for education, intellect, or legal credentials. To many lay observers, this may seem anodyne — after all, can&#8217;t former prosecutors and defense attorneys/public defenders, as classes of attorneys, be presumed to have roughly equivalent legal acumens and credentials? Well, no. For generations, gifted law students of all political stripes have seen the prosecutorial career path — be it via the Department of Justice (DOJ), local U.S. attorney&#8217;s offices, state attorneys general offices, or even local district attorneys — as a prominent avenue for vocational success. The DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/entry-level-attorneys">Honors Program</a> has long been viewed as one of the most prestigious entry-level attorney tracks in the nation, and scores of lawyers hoping to one day be considered for a federal judgeship have routinely sought U.S. attorney&#8217;s office experience as a means of padding their resumes and evincing a demonstrable commitment to public service. Again, this holds true for lawyers and judges of all political persuasions and partisan affiliations: As but two prominent examples for those on the Left, 2016 failed Barack Obama U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is a former federal prosecutor and current presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is a former California attorney general.
This is simply not nearly as broadly true for those who pursue careers in the criminal defense bar — be they in private practice or working as public defenders. Leftists and libertarians can gnash their teeth and wail all they&#8217;d like, but the reality, as I <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1176324820771819520">tweeted</a> last month, is that in no sane world is the median defense lawyer of the same acumen and credentials as the median prosecutor. Representing drug traffickers, gangbangers, and felons in possession of firearms is not a dream job. Again, my claim is that this holds true for prosecutors and the defense bar, viewed as a class — obviously, there will be innumerable individual dispensations to such a broad rule, when comparing class sizes of this magnitude. But anecdotally, based on (1) my own personal experience knowing many individuals who have become prosecutors and defense lawyers, (2) my own law clerk experience and thinking back to a comparison of the median prosecutor&#8217;s brief and oral argument versus the median defense attorney&#8217;s brief and oral argument, and (3) discussing the issue with other former federal appellate law clerk friends, I feel eminently comfortable making such a claim. We should feel comfortable establishing a rebuttable presumption that prosecutors, considered as a class, have superior legal credentials to defense attorneys. Based purely on my own experience, I cannot even begin to count the volume of public defender&#8217;s office legal briefs I read that were of an immensely shoddy quality.
At a bare minimum, libertarians and leftists who would seek to place a moratorium on nominating prosecutors to federal judgeships ought to be asked how they can be so sure that they are not sacrificing legal acumen or credentials. I understand that such logic is arguably circular — anti-prosecutor libertarians and leftists could respond that such a moratorium may prophylactically disincentivize smart law school graduates who may aspire for judgeships from pursuing prosecutorial careers. But the salient point is that the general prestige of many prosecutorial career paths is so deeply ingrained in our legal culture. That is not something that can be easily reversed, and I highly suspect the criminal defense bar and its apologists have no particularly compelling argument to offer for how they might be able to do so.
Prosecutors do not write our nation&#8217;s criminal statutes — they merely enforce them. To the extent leftists and libertarians — hooked as they are on the anachronistic talking points of &#8220;mass incarceration&#8221; and &#8220;low-level non-violent offenders&#8221; — have substantive issues with our criminal statutes, they ought to lobby policymakers. By all accounts, considering both <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/needs-leftists-gop-texas-gov-greg-abbott-endorses-radical-ban-box-pro-criminal-mandate-employers/">state-level initiatives</a> and the aforementioned First Step Act, the pro-jailbreak cabal is quite successful in its lobbying efforts. Pro-jailbreak forces are wrong, on the policy merits, but that is an issue that can be debated in the political space. But it would be dangerous for justice and the rule of law, absent pro-jailbreak forces&#8217; ability to overcome the rebuttable presumption about the credentials of disparate vocational classes, for such forces to also take out their frustrations as part of the judicial nominations process.

Judge gavel with Justice lawyers, Businesswoman in suit or lawyer, Advice and Legal services Concept.

HAMMER: In Defense Of Prosecutors

Constitution

Crime

Department of Justice

Drugs

Federal Government

Homicide

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Kamala Harris

Former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) explained on Wednesday that while handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms deaths, he still only wants to take away so-called &#8220;assault weapons&#8221; from American citizens.
&#8220;First of all, there&#8217;s a significant difference between a handgun and an AR-15,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told MSNBC&#8217;s Willie Geist when confronted with the data. &#8220;If you talk to or listen to trauma surgeons, as I have, and they describe the wounds from those weapons of war, they expel all their kinetic energy inside of you. They just destroy your organs, cause you to bleed to death, very different from what a handgun will do. And there&#8217;s a legitimate use for a handgun, to protect yourself in your home.&#8221;
The former Texas congressman has long advocated for strict gun control measures, such as requiring universal background checks, opposing concealed carry reciprocity, and banning &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221; However, his anti-gun stance has become even more radical since he began seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
After facing mounting pressure to drop out of the presidential race, O&#8217;Rourke instead re-launched his campaign in August with a primary focus on his anti-gun platform. Days later, he called for the federal government to seize millions of firearms from law-abiding American citizens, but he has yet to clarify precisely which firearms should be confiscated.
Geist questioned O&#8217;Rourke on why he is not calling for law enforcement to go door-to-door in high crime areas like Chicago, in order to help prevent gun-related violence.
&#8220;The answer to that challenge is making sure that we have true universal background checks, close all of the loopholes, and in the Chicago example, and I&#8217;ve talked to people in Chicago about this, you cannot have selective enforcement of those background checks because while you may have them in Chicago, if you don&#8217;t have them in Indiana or in bordering states, people are going to buy guns in those places and bring them into Chicago,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke replied. &#8220;We need a national system of universal background checks and it must be complemented with red-flag laws so that if someone is displaying a tendency towards harming themselves, in a country that loses 22,000 people to gun suicides, or harming somebody else, then we take that weapon from them through due process before it is too late.&#8221;
After Geist pressed O&#8217;Rourke further on why, if 70% of gun violence is coming from handguns, not just &#8220;go all the way&#8221; and confiscate those as well.
&#8220;Because I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s the right thing to do,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke answered. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s constitutional.&#8221;
He subsequently cited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia&#8217;s landmark 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual&#8217;s right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia. While O&#8217;Rourke stated that Scalia noted some limits to the Second Amendment, the Democratic contender refrained from acknowledging what they are.
&#8220;When the Second Amendment was ratified and adopted, it took you three minutes to reload your musket. I don&#8217;t know that the Founding Fathers could have envisioned the kind of carnage that could be produced with one of these weapons,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said. &#8220;No civilian should own them. And I hope you all acknowledge this, every candidate on that stage is for an assault weapons ban.&#8221;
&#8220;So, if the logic is that those weapons are too dangerous to sell and then you knowledge that there are 16 million of them out there, you have to do something about the number of weapons that are out there,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And my plan is the clearest, it is the boldest, and to your point, it is politically difficult, it may not poll well, it may not be politically convenient, but it&#8217;s important if we&#8217;re going to save the lives of our fellow Americans.&#8221;

Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate In Fourth Debate In Ohio

Beto O&#8217;Rourke Tries To Explain Why He Isn&#8217;t Calling For The Government To Confiscate Handguns

Gun Buybacks

Gun Laws

A small group of students at the University of Minnesota protested outside the school president’s office Friday demanding campus police officers be disarmed.
The College Fix <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/students-hold-sit-in-at-u-minnesota-presidents-office-to-demand-campus-cops-be-disarmed/">reported</a> that the sit-in was a follow-up to last year’s protest outside the University of Minnesota Police Department (UMPD). This year, just eight students attended. Last year, nearly double that protested outside the police department.
“This is essentially a reminder that we expect these demands to be met,” the student organizer <a href="https://www.mndaily.com/article/2019/10/n-students-host-study-in-outside-gabels-office">told The Minnesota Daily</a>.
Lest one think this sit-in was just about guns, the students also demanded an “increase [in] the diversity of the student population,” reported the Daily.
The protest was led by Students for a Democratic Society, and was referred to as a “study-in” because participating members had homework and studying to do.
“The goal is to occupy space … to keep it chill and study,” another organizer told the outlet.
“I have a midterm in half an hour,” said another. “I agree with the resolutions [from SDS], I just have to balance social justice with school.”
The Daily reported that students “snacked on Halloween-themed donuts and coffee as they studied.”
During last year’s small protest, a student said the call to disarm the UMPD was the “perfect opportunity for the University to leverage themselves on a progressive course in society and … nip in the bud any circumstances where police can murder people,” the Daily <a href="https://www.mndaily.com/article/2018/04/acdisarm">reported</a>.
During that protest, the Daily reported that no UMPD officer had fired their weapon since 2012, “when an officer shot a dying raccoon on the St. Paul campus.” It was the only reported incident in the past decade.
SDS handed out fliers last year claiming UMPD &#8212; a campus police force &#8212; had a stock of 57 automatic rifles and spent $500,000 per year purchasing new weapons and supplies.
“The more you have police officers armed to respond to folks in the community who are armed and potentially pose a threat, the more that there&#8217;s a risk of that threat actually coming from the police officers,” a sociology professor told the outlet in April 2018.
A UMPD spokesperson told the Daily that the department did not plan to disarm, as law enforcement must be ready for potential active shooters.
The Fix reported that the UM student government voted down a resolution to disarm the UMPD by nearly 400 votes last year.
The campaign to disarm campus police officers spread early last year. Students at the University of Chicago also <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-of-chicago-students-demand-campus-police-be-disarmed/">wanted police officers disarmed</a>, claiming through their protest signs “UofC kills.” In reality, there had only been one report of an officer firing their weapon in the past 30 years &#8212; and body cam footage proved it was self-defense. A student with a mental illness had charged the officer with a metal pole. The student was shot in the shoulder and charged with assault and property damage.
Similarly, students at the University of California-Davis approved a resolution to disarm police officers. Shortly after the resolution passed, a Sacramento Police officer <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/uc-davis-police-chief-decries-resolution-to-disarm-campus-cops-as-officer-killed-in-line-of-duty/">was killed</a> by an assailant with a rifle in the line of duty.

Standing Protester

Students At The University Of Minnesota Demand Campus Cops Be Disarmed

Education

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke recently opened up about the attacks he faced over his demand for a nationwide gun confiscation program, stating that he took pride in condemnation from not only President Donald Trump, but also from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
&#8220;It shows me we are doing something right,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told reporters Thursday while visiting a marijuana dispensary in Oakland, California, on Thursday. The former Texas congressman further noted that because Schumer, a member of his own party, launched the attack, it signaled that O’Rourke was being authentic.
However, O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s calls for the government to seize firearms from millions of law-abiding citizens have been a divisive topic for the Democratic Party. While his declaration received massive applause from the left-wing crowd at the last Democratic National Committee (DNC) primary debate, many Democratic lawmakers have since been distancing themselves from the rallying cries.
Schumer brushed off O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s gun confiscation plan on Wednesday, telling reporters that he doesn&#8217;t &#8220;know of any other Democrat who agrees&#8221; with the proposal.
&#8220;Ask Chuck Schumer what he&#8217;s been able to get done,&#8221; O’Rourke responded to Schumer&#8217;s dismissal, in comments reported by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beto-orourke-says-senates-top-democrat-has-accomplished-absolutely-nothing-on-gun-control/2019/09/20/ced58c92-db93-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html">The Washington Post</a>. &#8220;We still don&#8217;t have [universal] background checks. Didn&#8217;t have them when he was in the majority either. So, you know, the game that he&#8217;s played, the politics that he&#8217;s pursued have give us absolutely nothing. And have produced a situation where we lose nearly 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year.&#8221;
&#8220;What [Schumer] may not know, but what I hear loud and clear, because I&#8217;m traveling the country listening to my fellow Americans, is that the people are there,&#8221; he added.
While Schumer has largely remained silent on the issue after his initial remarks to reporters, O&#8217;Rourke has continued to defend himself against the Senate&#8217;s top Democrat. O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s presidential campaign swiftly sent out fundraising emails illustrating the popularity of a nationwide gun-grab among Democrats, and O&#8217;Rourke tweeted his case to the minority leader multiple times.
Despite Schumer&#8217;s dismissal of the proposal, he has been a long-time advocate of strict gun reforms. While serving in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, he authored both the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the federal assault weapons ban. Following a recent slew of deadly mass shootings over the summer, Schumer has been urging Congress and the White House to enact an expansive package of gun control legislation that includes universal background checks and red flag laws.
&#8220;Over the last five weeks, I&#8217;ve just been focused on saying what&#8217;s on my mind, being myself,&#8221; O’Rourke told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/beto-orourke-guns-2020.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share">The New York Times</a> on Monday. &#8220;And not really in the slightest being interested in polls, or how things poll, or what you&#8217;re supposed to say.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign, however, has struggled to gain traction and his polling numbers have stalled out in the low single-digits.
After facing mounting pressure to drop out of the race in August, the Democratic presidential hopeful instead re-launched his campaign with a new-found calling to promulgate anti-Second Amendment policies in an attempt to prevent further gun crime.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/52052/hell-no-youre-not-mom-rips-beto-his-face-over-gun-ryan-saavedra">‘HELL NO, YOU’RE NOT!’: Mom Rips Beto To His Face Over Gun Confiscation Plan</a>

Beto Basks In Democratic Leader’s Condemnation: ‘It Shows Me We’re Doing Something Right’

Charles Schumer

With the Democrats increasingly embracing a federal ban on &#8220;assault-style&#8221; rifles and a mandatory gun &#8220;buy-back&#8221; program, Connecticut-based gunmaker Colt announced this week that it is suspending its production of rifles for civilians, including AR-15s, the most popular gun in America.
In a <a href="https://www.colt.com/news/2630?fbclid=IwAR2bNzlGXttrst2OwPNBzoeH1MA4IyjajRUf1SPWj1goqel3mbdKT7mUshk">statement</a> published on Colt&#8217;s website and promoted on social media Thursday, Colt President and CEO Dennis Veilleux said the company has decided to temporarily suspend production of rifles for the civilian market, but made a point of noting that the decision is not motivated by a political agenda and that the company remains &#8220;committed to the Second Amendment.&#8221; Instead, he explained, Colt has determined that the sporting rifles market has reached &#8220;significant excess manufacturing capacity.&#8221;
&#8220;There have been numerous articles recently published about Colt&#8217;s participation in the commercial rifle market,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;Some of these articles have incorrectly stated or implied that Colt is not committed to the consumer market. We want to assure you that Colt is committed to the Second Amendment, highly values its customers and continues to manufacture the world&#8217;s finest quality firearms for the consumer market.&#8221;
&#8220;The fact of the matter is that over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity,&#8221; Veilleux continued. &#8220;Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.&#8221;
Colt&#8217;s president goes on to explain that the company has decided to focus its rifle production entirely on fulfilling contracts with the military and law enforcement.
&#8220;On the other hand, our warfighters and law enforcement personnel continue to demand Colt rifles and we are fortunate enough to have been awarded significant military and law enforcement contracts,&#8221; the statement continues. &#8220;Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt&#8217;s manufacturing capacity for rifles. Colt&#8217;s commitment to the consumer markets, however, is unwavering. We continue to expand our network of dealers across the country and to supply them with expanding lines of the finest quality 1911s and revolvers.&#8221;
He concludes by once again stressing the company&#8217;s pro-Second Amendment stance. &#8220;At the end of the day, we believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change,&#8221; Veilleux writes. &#8220;Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world. &#8221;
In its report on the announcement, the <a href="https://apnews.com/fbdf5e5f6d654332bbedfaffe3663154">Associated Press</a> notes that Colt &#8220;has received some criticism from gun rights advocates for moving away from the civilian market&#8221; and that pressure on &#8220;assault-style&#8221; weapons has ratcheted up in recent weeks.
Most prominent of those calling for the banning of &#8220;weapons of war&#8221; — particularly AR-15s and AK-47s — is Democratic presidential candidate and former Texas Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke, who has shifted the focus of his struggling campaign almost entirely to promoting radical gun control. Among his proposals is a mandatory &#8220;buy-back&#8221; program for all &#8220;assault-style&#8221; rifles, though the candidate has failed to adequately define the term.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51718/beto-says-hell-yes-were-going-take-americans-guns-james-barrett">Beto Says ‘Hell Yes’ We’re Going To Take Americans’ Guns; WATCH How Democratic Crowd Responds</a>

Colt AR-15

Colt Suspends Production Of Rifles For Civilians, But Says It’s Not Why You Think

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) praised Democratic presidential candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke on Thursday for being honest about his desire to seize millions of firearms from law-abiding American citizens.
&#8220;Look, there are two groups of people behind these bills,&#8221; Kennedy told Fox News host Sandra Smith while discussing forthcoming gun control legislation.
&#8220;There&#8217;s a group of people who I think in good faith honestly believe that further curtailing our Second Amendment rights will enhance public safety,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;But there&#8217;s another group that just hates the Second Amendment, and I want to thank Congressman Beto O&#8217;Rourke for being honest — I mean, his honesty was refreshing.&#8221;
<div class="embed video fluid-video">Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a></div>
Kennedy&#8217;s remarks were in reference to O&#8217;Rourke’s recent proposal to implement a federally mandated gun confiscation program for so-called &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221; The anti-Second Amendment plan is so radical that even members of his own party swiftly distanced themselves from the proposal.
&#8220;Beto&#8217;s copy of the Bill of Rights goes from one to three. Mine includes the Second Amendment,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;But there are a whole host of people here in Washington D.C. — not all of my Democratic friends, but many of my Democratic friends — they don’t believe in the Second Amendment.&#8221;
&#8220;They would be happy to confiscate America&#8217;s guns,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And if you don’t believe that, then you probably also still believe in Big Foot. I mean, it&#8217;s a fact and everybody up here knows it.&#8221;
Kennedy, like many Republicans on Capitol Hill, had recently met with Attorney General William Barr to discuss possible gun control legislation in the aftermath of a slew of deadly mass shootings.
The White House is reportedly considering expanding background checks amid mounting public pressure to act. While the plan has largely been unpopular with Republican lawmakers, many are understandably waiting to see the legislation before publicly opining.
Kennedy revealed to Smith that at this point in time, he&#8217;s still not sure if both sides of the aisle will ultimately be able to agree on infringing any further gun rights for American citizens.
&#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t bet my house on it [that something gets done], and if I were betting your house, I&#8217;d probably say maybe,&#8221; the Louisiana senator said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve got to see what the proposals are first. The president&#8217;s opinion matters. I met with Bill Barr yesterday. I think the White House sent him up here because most people in the Senate have great respect for him.&#8221;
Kennedy further noted that when it comes to restricting constitutional rights, the burden is on the lawmakers to prove the necessity in doing so.
&#8220;The Bill of Rights isn&#8217;t an a la carte menu,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;The Second Amendment is just as important as the Fourth and the First.&#8221;
&#8220;As usual, I&#8217;ll probably find what the president has to say to be persuasive, but I want to make it very clear, it&#8217;s dispositive for me,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;If the president puts a bill on the floor that I think curtails or hurts people&#8217;s constitutional rights without substantially enhancing public safety, uh uh, that’s a bridge too far for me. I&#8217;m going to fight for our Constitution.&#8221;

John Kennedy

WATCH: Republican Senator Thanks Beto For His ‘Refreshing’ Honesty On Gun Confiscation

William Barr

After Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dismissed Democratic presidential candidate former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s (D-TX) demand for a nationwide gun confiscation program as unrepresentative of the Democratic Party, O&#8217;Rourke responded with polls showing its support.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O’Rourke,&#8221; Schumer told reporters during a conference call on Wednesday. &#8220;But it is no excuse not to go forward [with gun control legislation].&#8221;
&#8220;With respect to the Minority Leader, a recent Monmouth University poll found that nearly 70% of Democrats support Beto’s mandatory buyback plan for assault weapons,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign responded in a fundraising email. &#8220;A Washington Post poll found 74% of Democrats support it.&#8221;
The former Texas congressman was the first major 2020 Democratic candidate to endorse a government-run gun seizure program for so-called &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; but a host of his primary challengers have since followed suit, including members of Schumer&#8217;s own Senate caucus.
&#8220;Even several of Schumer&#8217;s colleagues support Beto’s plan,&#8221; the email continued. &#8220;For example, both Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker said they back Beto&#8217;s mandatory assault weapons buyback.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke faced widespread blowback after the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s (DNC) third primary debate when he stated in no uncertain terms that if he were to be elected president, he would confiscate millions of firearms from law-abiding American citizens.
&#8220;Hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said on the debate stage. &#8220;We are not going to allow [them] to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.&#8221;
While his declaration received massive applause from the left-wing crowd, many members of his own party have since distanced themselves from O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s rallying cries. Democratic lawmakers, including those in leadership, have even been sounding the alarm that such an anti-Second Amendment endorsement could be detrimental to Democrats and further fire up the Republican base.
&#8220;Look, Beto would support this even if it weren&#8217;t popular because this is about doing the right thing to end our nation&#8217;s gun violence epidemic,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign email continued. &#8220;But the fact is that the vast majority of Democrats do support Beto&#8217;s plan — which means it&#8217;s time for leadership that embraces bold gun safety reform.&#8221;
Schumer, however, has been working along side House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass an expansive package of gun control legislation, which includes universal background checks and &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws.
O’Rourke&#8217;s Democratic primary challenger, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, expressed concern days earlier that O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s demand for the federal government to seize firearms from American citizens is playing into the hands of Republicans and may prevent any Democratic-backed legislation from getting passed.
&#8220;Look, right now, we have an amazing member right here on our hands. We have agreement among the American people for not just universal background checks, but we have a majority in favor of red flag laws, high-capacity magazines, and banning the new sale of assault weapons,&#8221; Buttigieg said on CNN over the weekend. &#8220;This is a golden moment to finally do something because we&#8217;ve been arguing about this for as long as I’ve been alive.&#8221;
&#8220;Leaving millions of weapons of war on the streets because Trump and McConnell are &#8216;at least pretending to be open to reform&#8217;?&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke responded to the South Bend mayor. &#8220;That calculation and fear is what got us here in the first place. Let&#8217;s have the courage to say what we believe and fight for it.&#8221;

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaking at the press

Chuck Schumer Claims Democrats Don’t Support Gun Confiscation. Beto Proves Him Wrong.

Pete Buttigieg

Democratic presidential candidate former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) revealed on Wednesday that if elected to the presidency, he will enforce a nationwide gun confiscation program by fining any American who does not hand over their firearms to the government.
&#8220;I begin by saying that we expect our fellow Americans to follow the law,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told reporters while on the campaign trail. &#8220;If they do not, there would be a fine imposed to compel them to follow the law.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Question: what happens if people don’t sell their guns back to the govt&#8230;.answer: <a href="https://t.co/wGuXJlBZQG">pic.twitter.com/wGuXJlBZQG</a>
— Teresa Riley (@TeresaRFox4) <a href="https://twitter.com/TeresaRFox4/status/1173340287311208449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The former congressman has faced massive backlash for demanding that the federal government seize millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens. However, he has also been noticeably vague about how the federally mandated program would work in the event that Americans refuse to voluntarily turn in their firearms.
&#8220;We&#8217;ve seen this implemented successfully in Australia, where you&#8217;ve seen a near-50% reduction in gun violence deaths in that country,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said. &#8220;They estimate that between 16 and 20 mass shootings have been averted so far.&#8221;
&#8220;Take it from the people in El Paso and Midland-Odessa, if we can avoid one of those mass shootings, we absolutely should,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And if we can do so while protecting your Second Amendment rights — you still have a gun to hunt, you still have a gun to protect yourself, you can still take your kids out and teach them how to use those firearms or take them on a hunting trip — then let’s do that. And that&#8217;s the path that’s open to us right now in this country.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s demand for a nationwide gun grab comes as he has been facing mounting pressure to drop out of the presidential race. Instead of ending his campaign, he re-branded it for a third time in August with a primary focus on his anti-gun platform.
O&#8217;Rourke was the first major 2020 Democratic candidate to endorse a government-run gun confiscation program for so-called &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; but a host of his primary challengers have since followed suit. To date, none of the candidates have provided a clear definition of what constitutes an &#8220;assault weapon.&#8221;
The former Texas lawmaker faced a wave of criticism for what many consider to be a dangerous proposal — implementing such a program could lead to violent clashes, as Americans fear that they would be losing their right to defend themselves and their families.
O&#8217;Rourke has responded to the alarm bells by contending that his program would not require law enforcement to go to the homes of gun owners to seize the newly prohibited firearms. He also criticized the warnings as &#8220;not helpful&#8221; because they are &#8220;self-fulfilling.&#8221;
&#8220;How do we enforce any law?&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke replied when last week when asked about the logistics of is plan. &#8220;I mean, there&#8217;s a significant reliance on people complying with the law.&#8221;
&#8220;You know, that law is not created in a vacuum, it will have the input of members of Congress who are going to reflect their constituents&#8217; interests,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And, at the end of the day, I think we&#8217;re going to get to a solution that protects your Second Amendment rights while protecting the lives of everyone in this country. I&#8217;m confident America can do it.&#8221;

beto.jpg

WATCH: Beto Finally Reveals How He Will Enforce His Gun Confiscation Program

Former Republican New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu criticized Democratic presidential candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke on Monday for promulgating policies so far outside the mainstream that even his own party is becoming frustrated.
&#8220;He really is desperate at this point and will say just about anything to get a headline,&#8221; Sununu told Fox News host Bill Hemmer. &#8220;You gave him a headline and so he will probably continue to say silly things like that that will irritate both his Democrats and the Republicans.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">WATCH: <a href="https://twitter.com/BillHemmer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillHemmer</a> spoke with <a href="https://twitter.com/GovernorSununu?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GovernorSununu</a> after <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenSchumer</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerPelosi</a> tell the president gun control must include universal background checks <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nine2noon?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nine2noon</a> <a href="https://t.co/hfVeUTgYIH">pic.twitter.com/hfVeUTgYIH</a>
— America&#8217;s Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmericaNewsroom/status/1173588387749650432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sununu&#8217;s remarks were in reference to comments that O&#8217;Rourke made during the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s third presidential primary debate on Thursday. While participating in the event, the former Texas congressman declared that if he were to be elected president, he would seize certain firearms from law-abiding citizens.
&#8220;Hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said at the time. &#8220;We are not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.&#8221;
While the declaration received massive cheers from the left-wing audience, many of his fellow Democrats swiftly distanced themselves from the anti-Second Amendment calls.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who serves in the House Democratic leadership, stated over the weekend that there is no basis for Americans’ worries that Democrats are proposing gun confiscation. He added that O’Rourke’s message &#8220;doesn&#8217;t help&#8221; the party.
&#8220;Well, it just confirms that Beto O&#8217;Rourke has slipped into the role of the immature pest that even the Democrats want out of the process,&#8221; Sununu responded to Cicilline.
Sununu, the former White House chief of staff under President George H.W. Bush, also slammed the Democratic leadership for refusing to back any legislation aimed at reducing gun violence unless part of its own left-wing agenda was also passed.
&#8220;This morning we made it clear to the president that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes still exist and people who should not have guns will still get access,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a statement.
Schumer and Pelosi&#8217;s pressure campaign comes as a bipartisan delegation has been working on crafting a gun control legislative package, which reportedly includes expanding background checks and provisions dealing with mental health issues. It is unclear if the proposal will ultimately include universal background checks that would place additional burdens on private sales.
&#8220;I find it interesting that as soon as word got out that Democratic senators and Republican senators were getting close on a compromise, Pelosi and Schumer decide to draw a line in the sand which they know will make it extremely difficult to get to a piece of legislation,&#8221; Sununu said. &#8220;I think it underscores the fact that Democrats would rather talk about this issue than get any legislation passed.&#8221;
&#8220;I think that everybody, Republicans and Democrats, should demand a test on whatever is proposed and explain how whatever legislation they&#8217;re going to support would have dealt with the reality of the tragedies that have occurred over the past few years,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;The fact is that even universal background checks would not have had much of an impact at all because most of those guns were either acquired legally through a background check, or stolen, or some other nefarious way.&#8221;

bo.jpg

WATCH: Former New Hampshire Gov Slams O’Rourke As An ‘Immature Pest’

Former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) urged his supporters on Sunday to donate money to the challenger of a Texas state legislator whom the presidential hopeful reported to the FBI for what he considered a death threat.
&#8220;Texas lawmaker Briscoe Cain tweeted a death threat at Beto after Thursday night&#8217;s debate,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s 2020 campaign wrote in an email. &#8220;Twitter removed it and we reported him to the FBI. But then — and this is truly unbelievable — Fox News invited Cain to be on primetime TV last night so he could joke around about the death threat and raise money for his campaign. Absolutely despicable.&#8221;
&#8220;So here&#8217;s what we&#8217;re going to do: We&#8217;re going to raise a bunch of money today for the Democrat running against Cain, Josh Markle,&#8221; the email continued. &#8220;We need ALL hands on deck because Cain probably raised tens of thousands of dollars for his campaign last night on Fox News.&#8221;
After struggling to gain traction in the polls, O&#8217;Rourke faced increased pressure during the summer to drop out of the presidential race. Rather than ending his campaign, O&#8217;Rourke re-launched it — making his anti-gun policies the cornerstone to his platform. Days later, the former Texas congressman announced his support for federally mandated gun confiscation for all so-called &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221;
While participating in the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s third presidential primary debate on Thursday, O&#8217;Rourke declared in no uncertain terms that if he were to be elected president, he would impose a nationwide confiscation program to seize tens of millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
&#8220;Hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said at the time. &#8220;We are not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.&#8221;
The declaration received massive cheers from O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s left-wing base. However, even members of his own party have been subsequently warning that such an anti-Second Amendment provocation could prove politically detrimental to Democrats by inadvertently firing up the Republican base.
Accordingly, Republican Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain took issue with O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s calls for action, and tweeted at the presidential hopeful, &#8220;My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn&#8217;t own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else. <a href="https://t.co/jsiZmwjMDs">pic.twitter.com/jsiZmwjMDs</a>
— Beto O&#8217;Rourke (@BetoORourke) <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1172359875093061632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;This is a death threat, Representative,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke responded. &#8220;Clearly, you shouldn&#8217;t own an AR-15 — and neither should anyone else.&#8221;
Cain, however, denied that he was threatening O&#8217;Rourke. He further defended his language, stating that it was a nod to the Battle of Gonzales, the first armed engagement of the Texas Revolution.
&#8220;He&#8217;s threatened to trespass on my property and the property of others or to kick down our door and take from us,&#8221; Cain said while appearing on Fox News. &#8220;What I wrote really is just another way of saying, &#8216;Come and Take It.'&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign, however, endorsed Cain&#8217;s Democratic challenger and urged supporters to donate to help unseat the Republican state lawmaker.
&#8220;Last year, Briscoe Cain ran completely unopposed. This time, we have a Democrat running to defeat him. Josh [Markle] served in the Air Force before moving to the Houston area to pursue computer science. He now works for a sign language interpreting agency that serves the deaf community of Southeast Texas,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign wrote. &#8220;The more money we can raise for Josh today, the stronger and clearer our message to Cain becomes. So please make your donations right now.&#8221;

Beto Fundraises For Challenger Of Lawmaker Who Allegedly Threatened Him

Presidential hopeful Robert Francis &#8220;Beto&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke has oft-repeated the claim that Texas gun owners are eager to have their guns, such as their legally owned AR-15s and AK-47s, confiscated from them by the government.
On Saturday, for example, the Democrat told MSNBC&#8217;s Joy Reid, &#8220;Texans who own AR-15s, they&#8217;ve told me, &#8216;I don&#8217;t need this. I don&#8217;t need it to hunt, I don&#8217;t need it to protect myself &#8230; if giving this back, or cutting it to pieces, or selling it to the gov helps to keep us safer, then by all means do it,'&#8221; reported The Daily Wire&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1172899392312885250">Ryan Saavedra</a>.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Beto O&#8217;Rourke with another : “Texans who own AR-15s, they’ve told me, &#8216;I don’t need this. I don’t need it to hunt, I don’t need it to protect myself…if giving this back, or cutting it to pieces, or selling it to the gov helps to keep us safer, then by all means do it’” <a href="https://t.co/am73OpOC8A">pic.twitter.com/am73OpOC8A</a>
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1172899392312885250?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
On the same day, Texas Tribune&#8217;s Patrick Svitek reported that O&#8217;Rourke claimed a &#8220;longtime Republican&#8221; spoke to him in the bathroom while they were urinating, telling the Democrat he&#8217;s all in for the gun confiscation.
&#8220;New O&#8217;Rourke anecdote: He says a longtime Republican chatted him up today in [Buc-ee&#8217;s Beaver] bathroom on guns,&#8221; posted Svitek. &#8220;He said, &#8216;This is gonna be strange — not strange that I&#8217;m talking to you while we&#8217;re both at a urinal &#8230; but strange because I&#8217;m telling you you&#8217;re absolutely right on guns.'&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">New O&#8217;Rourke anecdote: He says a longtime Republican chatted him up today in <a href="https://twitter.com/bucees?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BUCEES</a> bathroom on guns. &#8220;He said, &#8216;This is gonna be strange — not strange that I’m talking to you while we’re both at a urinal &#8230; but strange because I&#8217;m telling you you&#8217;re absolutely right on guns.&#8221;
— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1172932837630185472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
O&#8217;Rourke echoed similar suspect claims during last week&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1172317454246113282">Democratic presidential primary debate</a>, and at other <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1173020736786595841">campaign events</a>.
The stories from Mr. O&#8217;Rourke have grabbed the attention of actual Texas gun owners.
The Blaze&#8217;s Jason Howerton, for example, took the Democrat to task over the claim. &#8220;Hey, [Beto O&#8217;Rourke], actual Texan here,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;I regret to inform you that your request to buy my legally purchased firearms has been denied after your background check revealed a criminal record.&#8221;
&#8220;Don&#8217;t want to take any chances. Xoxo,&#8221; Howerton said, adding a kiss-face emoji.
Ouch.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Hey, <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BetoORourke</a>, actual Texan here.
I regret to inform you that your request to buy my legally purchased firearms has been denied after your background check revealed a criminal record.
Don’t want to take any chances. Xoxo <a href="https://t.co/GAT1KRh0xy">https://t.co/GAT1KRh0xy</a>
— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) <a href="https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1172996380979290116?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Howerton was referring to the failed Senate candidate&#8217;s past run-in with the law. In 1998, O&#8217;Rourke was arrested for drunk driving. According to the <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Police-reports-detail-Beto-O-Rourke-s-1998-13195088.php">Houston Chronicle</a>, the police report, which was newly obtained by the outlet last year, claimed that &#8220;there was a crash involved&#8221; and that &#8220;O&#8217;Rourke allegedly attempted to flee.&#8221;
Saavedra <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/35320/ted-cruz-challenger-beto-orourke-tried-flee-scene-ryan-saavedra">reported</a> last August:
<blockquote>&#8220;A reporter who witnessed the crash said that he observed O&#8217;Rourke traveling at a &#8216;high rate of speed’ in a 75-mph zone as O’Rourke then ‘lost control of the vehicle and struck a truck.&#8217;
O&#8217;Rourke then reportedly attempted to flee the scene of the crash after hitting someone, but the reporter was there to stop him from getting away.&#8221;</blockquote>
Other Texans pushed back on O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s tales of gun owners, too.
&#8220;Texan here,&#8221; said Red State&#8217;s Brandon Morse. &#8220;I rate this a Texas sized lie.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Texan here.
I rate this a Texas sized lie. <a href="https://t.co/Ub1VKgSrVy">https://t.co/Ub1VKgSrVy</a>
— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBrandonMorse/status/1173008235994976256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;As an American who lived in Texas for a year, I feel confident in saying this is bull,&#8221; wrote Daily Caller associate editor Virginia Kruta.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">As an American who lived in Texas for a year, I feel confident in saying this is bull. <a href="https://t.co/HRXVwn3zhL">https://t.co/HRXVwn3zhL</a>
— Virginia Kruta (@VAKruta) <a href="https://twitter.com/VAKruta/status/1173029391007453184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Managing Director of Breitbart Texas Brandon Darby posted: &#8220;I&#8217;m as Texan as anyone and this is BS. Born in Pasadena, Texas.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I’m as Texan as anyone and this is BS. Born in Pasadena, Texas. <a href="https://t.co/4kXru73wuo">https://t.co/4kXru73wuo</a>
— Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1173376521966194688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who has lived in both Houston and Dallas, told &#8220;Beto&#8221; to &#8220;come and take it,&#8221; captioning a piece he penned, titled: &#8220;I Will Never, Ever Let The Government &#8216;Buy Back&#8217; My &#8216;Assault Weapon.'&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Dear Beto,
Come and take it. <a href="https://t.co/MaxDpiyASv">https://t.co/MaxDpiyASv</a>
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1172314393066913793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Robert &#8216;Beto&#8217; O&#8217;Rourke

Beto Claims Texas Gun Owners Want Gun Confiscation. Actual Texas Gun Owner Levels Him In One Tweet.

Thomas Fahr Steyer, a California-based billionaire and leftist activist focusing on environmental issues, is a candidate for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Steyer, a longtime leftist philanthropist and prolific donor to Democratic candidates and causes, is by far the wealthiest candidate in the 2020 Democratic field. Steyer&#8217;s political activism has focused disproportionately on environmentalism and global warming/climate change issues, although he has the political profile of an across-the-board, full-spectrum progressive/leftist. As the most recent entrant into the 2020 Democratic presidential field, he does not yet register in <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/">current polling for the nomination</a>.
Steyer, who has a bachelor degree from Yale University and a MBA from Stanford University, is the founder of San Francisco-based hedge fund Farallon Capital and the co-founder of Oakland-based Beneficial State Bank. In 2012, Steyer stepped down from Farallon in order to focus more of his time on environmentalist/alternative energy advocacy. In addition to his involvement with Beneficial State Bank, which focuses on community development, Steyer has been involved with other leftist philanthropic causes — including his <a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Tom-Steyer-says-effort-to-end-inequality-isn-t-6438690.php">2015 founding</a> of the Fair Shake Commission on Income Inequality and Middle Class Opportunity, which promotes reducing income inequality. But above all, Steyer has spent more time and resources on environmentalist activism. In 2013, for example, Steyer founded NextGen America, an environmentalist nonprofit and political action committee.
Steyer, who would become the first president with a Jewish parent if successfully elected, is married and has four children. He has an <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-steyer/">estimated net worth</a> of $1.6 billion, and has committed self-funding his 2020 presidential bid to the tune of <a href="https://time.com/5623149/tom-steyer-presidential-campaign/">$100 million</a>.
Electoral History: Steyer has never sought political office prior to his current campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. However, he has a lengthy history of involvement in partisan Democratic causes. Steyer has been a prolific fundraiser for many leading Democrats over the past few decades, including for Barack Obama in 2008. Steyer also spoke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and reportedly considered a 2018 run for California governor.
On The Issues: Perhaps more so than any of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, Steyer&#8217;s candidacy revolves around one core issue: Environmentalism. He has made global warming prevention, opposition to the oil and natural gas industries, and a concomitant greater government role in investing in alternative energy sources the central tenets of his public activist profile. Steyer has a less prolific track record and history of commentary on other issues, but all available evidences points toward his being an across-the-board, full-spectrum progressive/leftist. For example, his 2020 campaign <a href="https://www.tomsteyer.com/about-tom/">website</a> also touts his work in &#8220;promot[ing] social justice and increas[ing] participation in our democracy through voter registration and grassroots organizing.&#8221;
Constitution: Steyer has a very thin public record of commenting on legal and judicial issues. He has, however, been a prominent advocate for impeaching President Donald Trump. Steyer has stated that he opposes Citizens United v. F.E.C., the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark 2010 political speech-affirming case. He also <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/12/megadonor-steyer-abortion-rights-candidates-241563">supports</a> Roe v. Wade, thus indicating a belief in the so-called constitutional &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; and &#8220;right to abortion.&#8221; Steyer has suggested sympathy for gun control measures that would undermine Americans&#8217; Second Amendment rights, and he also supports a robust role for the federal government in economic regulation that is consistent with mainstream legal progressivism.
Economy: Steyer supports raising personal taxes and strongly opposed President Trump&#8217;s 2017 tax cut law. In his 2020 campaign announcement video, Steyer <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-tom-steyer-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-6-issues">lamented</a> how corporations have an &#8220;unlimited ability to participate in politics, [which] will skew everything because they only care about profits.&#8221; His anti-corporation message is also decidedly populist, as Steyer has also <a href="https://www.axios.com/tom-steyer-on-the-issues-in-under-500-words-2020-presidential-election-2e5a747a-b6bf-459d-a581-e7d1efcd75bd.html">said</a> that &#8220;the only way for us to solve the urgent problems facing our country is to loosen the stranglehold that corporations have over our politicians and return political power to the American people.&#8221; Like many of his 2020 Democratic rivals, Steyer also <a href="https://www.latimes.com/la-pol-sac-essential-poli-tom-steyer-praises-minimum-wage-hike-1459196428-htmlstory.html">supports</a> raising the federal minimum wage. Steyer, though a billionaire, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/this-billionaire-wants-trump-to-raise-his-taxes.html">vocally opposes</a> income inequality.
Health Care: Steyer <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/tom-steyer-2020-democrats/540357/">supports</a> &#8220;Medicare for All,&#8221; which would effectively amount to a single-payer health insurance system and a de facto governmental takeover of health insurance and imposition of socialized medicine in America. He <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-tom-steyer-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-6-issues">has been critical</a> of the perceived corporate greed of large pharmaceutical companies.
Immigration: Steyer has been harshly critical of the Trump administration&#8217;s attempts to secure our border amidst a hitherto unprecedented influx there of Central American migrants. Steyer <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/392482-billionaire-steyer-to-invest-1-million-to-help-immigrants-fight">donated</a> last year to leftist/open-borders legal groups at the southern border working to assist illegal aliens facing deportation. He <a href="https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1146079566374457344">addresses</a> illegal immigration in starkly pro-illegal alien — and not rule-of-law — terminology. Steyer appears to <a href="https://nextgenamerica.org/issues/immigration/">support</a> a pathway to citizenship for much of America&#8217;s illegal alien populace.
Foreign Policy: Steyer has a thin track record on foreign policy, although he <a href="https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1005947721361121281?s=20">has been critical</a> of President Trump&#8217;s foreign policy approach. He has also taken the standard leftist approach to Special Counsel Bob Mueller&#8217;s now-infamous report: <a href="https://www.needtoimpeach.com/obstruction-of-justice/">Accusing</a> President Trump of obstruction of justice.
Abortion: Steyer is <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Steyer">emphatically pro-abortion</a>.
Guns: Steyer has founded organizations have <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Steyer">worked closely</a>, at times, with anti-Second Amendment organizations. He is largely seen as sympathetic to gun control initiatives.

Menu