Categories
California Cops

The Sound Behind You Is Reality Catching Up (and It’s Carrying a Gun) BY JACK DUNPHY

Bryan Chan/County of Los Angeles via AP
What value is there in a newspaper that ignores or subverts the truth in the service of  some fashionable agenda? And if this abuse of what once were universally observed journalistic standards isn’t shameful enough, how much worse is it when it results in needless death and bloodshed?

It should be obvious to anyone not ideologically blinkered that the Los Angeles Times has wed itself to the social justice cause, so inextricably so that no one at the paper seems cognizant of the fact that social justice, with its appeals for compassion for criminals, comes at the expense of actual justice and the welfare of crime victims.

The Los Angeles Times is hardly alone in its descent into woke activism. Indeed, the entire mainstream media complex seems to have abandoned its pretense of objectivity (and it has long been just a pretense) in favor of open left-wing activism. Nowhere is this more evident than in the reporting on issues relating to crime.

On Tuesday, the L.A. Times ran a story concerning one of the paper’s favorite ongoing themes, to wit, allegations of bias on the part of Los Angeles Police Department officers patrolling the more crime-ridden sections of the city. “LAPD admits it made hundreds more traffic stops in South L.A. than it told The Times,” reads the headline, reflecting the glee no doubt shared at the newspaper that the Department had been caught providing inaccurate data regarding this contentious issue.

This is not to excuse providing bad data to the Times, but the story itself seems to be more concerned with the “gotcha” aspect than with the far more important issue underlying the data, which is the problem of violent crime in Los Angeles, particularly in South L.A.

What’s more, the story is a muddle of unclear information from which the reader is unable to draw a sound conclusion. Times staff writer Kevin Rector opens the story with the “gotcha.” “Los Angeles Police Department officials earlier this month downplayed a return to controversial investigative traffic stops in South L.A.” he writes, “in part by telling The Times that the number of stops was dramatically lower than it used to be — with just 74 stops so far this year.” He goes on to cite the belatedly revealed accurate data. “But on Tuesday,” Rector writes, “LAPD Chief Michel Moore told the L.A. Police Commission that figure was wrong, and that the true count was more than eight times as high, with 639 stops having been conducted.”

Only by reading deep into the story, and by reading a linked Feb. 12 article, also by Rector, can the reader learn that it is stops by Metropolitan Division officers that is being discussed. Officers assigned Metropolitan Division, or Metro, do not respond to routine radio calls. Rather, they are traditionally deployed to inhibit crime in those areas of the city where it is most disruptive, which in Los Angeles means the four patrol divisions that make up South L.A.: Newton, Southwest, 77thStreet, and Southeast. (I worked at all of these stations at various times in my LAPD career.) L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and LAPD Chief Michel Moore were characteristically spineless and curtailed the patrols in 2019 after the L.A. Times ran stories claiming the tactic “disproportionately affected Black and Latino drivers.”

It would have been malfeasance on the part of the police had the stops not done so. Consider: these four divisions (of the LAPD’s total of 21) are home to about 640,000 people, or 16 percent of the city’s population, yet they accounted for 44 percent of the 349 homicides investigated by the LAPD in 2020. Nearly every single resident of these areas is black or Hispanic, as were the homicide victims and those who killed them.

The LAPD no longer publishes the racial breakdown of homicide victims and suspects as it once did, but it’s fair to assume that the city’s homicide figures run parallel to those of Los Angeles County, of which L.A. is by far the largest city and biggest driver of crime numbers. (Los Angeles County has about 10 million residents, of whom about 4 million live in the city of L.A.) According to the L.A. Times Homicide Report, last year there were 691 homicides committed in L.A. County, excluding those killed by police. Of these victims, 50 percent were Hispanic, 35 percent were black, 10 percent were white, and 5 percent were Asian. The county’s population is 47 percent Hispanic, 26 percent white, 15 percent Asian, and 9 percent black.

From these numbers one can see that homicide figures do not track perfectly with each racial and ethnic group’s share of the overall population. Yet the Los Angeles Times continues to insist something nefarious is afoot when LAPD stop figures align more closely with crime patterns than with population data. “The move to reinstate ‘investigative stops,’” writes Kevin Rector in the Feb. 12 story, “immediately raised concerns among some longtime police observers at a time of increased scrutiny over LAPD tactics in communities of color.”

As is now oh so fashionable, these “longtime police observers,” to include the writers and editors at the Los Angeles Times, apparently, are more discomfited by the prospect of police officers conducting investigative stops in high-crime neighborhoods than they are by the crime itself. It is precisely in those “communities of color” that law-abiding residents are most in need of protection from those who would prey on them.

Black Chicagoans Eviscerate Black Lives Matter Narrative, Booting Activists From Their Neighborhood

And yet the L.A. Times, along with nearly any other media outlet you can name, continues to peddle the lie – there is no better word for it – that what is most injurious to these “communities of color” is police harassment rather than the crime police seek to prevent.

How else to explain the paper’s uncritical devotion to George Gascón, L.A. County’s new district attorney and the latest of the George Soros-funded “progressive” prosecutors elected to office? The Times endorsed Gascón over incumbent Jackie Lacey last fall, and in the last two months has printed two editorials (here and here) defending Gascón and his lenient policies, the effects of which are fewer criminals sent to prison and shorter sentences for those who are.

Granted, Gascón was only recently elected, and one may argue, as does the L.A. Times, that his policies should be given time to bear their intended fruit. But what evidence is there that the fruit will be any less poisonous than that already produced in cities where progressive prosecutors have held office for longer? Larry Krasner took office as district attorney in Philadelphia on Jan. 1, 2018, and homicides in that city rose by 8 percent that year. Homicides declined by 1 percent in 2019, offering a hopeful sign, but then rose by 35 percent in 2020. They’re up an additional 33 percent so far this year.

In Chicago, Kim Foxx ran on a progressive platform and took office as state’s attorney for Cook County on Dec. 1, 2016, and was re-elected in 2020. Homicides in the city declined from 769 in 2016 to 492 in 2019, but then increased horrifyingly to 792 last year.

Chesa Boudin, district attorney for San Francisco, is the son of Weather Underground members and convicted murderers Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, a lineage that would understandably warp one’s views on law and order. He was elected in 2019 after promising progressive reforms to the criminal justice system in that most progressive of cities. The results so far? San Francisco saw a 17 percent increase in homicides in 2020.

In short, there is precious little to suggest the progressive policies instituted by this new wave of prosecutors have brought about anything but a rising tide of bloodshed among the very populations they claim to champion. The only people profiting from all this “progress” are the undertakers.

It was the tough-on-crime measures enacted in the early and mid-1990s that stemmed the rising tide of violence seen across the country (2,245 homicides in New York City in 1990, 1,092 in Los Angeles and 943 in Chicago in 1992) and brought about the relative placidity of recent years. Those gains have been reversed with staggering speed, all with the blessing of these progressive prosecutors and their enablers in academia and media outlets like the Los Angeles Times, all of whom share the naive, even childlike belief that showing compassion for the cruel will make them less so.

You can run only so far from reality. Like a bullet, it catches up with you quickly

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Sadly there is way too much true in there to be funny!

No photo description available.

Categories
All About Guns California

California Gun Sales Skyrocketing, Media Asks Why? By Tom Knighton

AP Photo/Andrew Selsky
California has a reputation as the most anti-gun state in the nation and for a very good reason. It’s hard to imagine too many gun control measures that wouldn’t gain support in the state. They don’t like guns there unless Hollywood is the ones with them and you’re not going to change their minds about it.

Or, you weren’t, anyway.

Like pretty much everywhere else, Californians are buying guns at a prodigious rate. It’s made some in the media ask just why would such a liberal state completely embrace guns so suddenly?

A surge in gun sales — fueled by economic insecurity, racial and political unrest and the pandemic — isn’t slowing down in California, home to some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

About 1.17 million new guns were registered in California in 2020, and as many as 369,000 people went through the state’s firearms background check process for the first time, according to newly released state data filed in federal court. The numbers are the latest evidence that Californians went on a gun-buying spree last year.

It was the most gun sales since 2016. State data shows that 1.28 million guns changed hands that year in California as buyers stocked up on firearms in advance of a host of new laws voters and the state legislature approved that year and amid fears that Democrat Hillary Clinton would win the presidency and pass new gun regulations.

WHY THESE CALIFORNIANS BOUGHT GUNS

Gavin Jeffries, 28, of Fair Oaks was a first-time buyer last year. He said he’d been meaning to pick up a 9 mm Glock for home defense for a while, but the rush on guns in 2020 had him worried he’d lose out.

“I was nervous that there was going to be a big delay in purchasing firearms just because of the backlog with popular guns like Glock pistols,” he said. “And I’d always planned on getting a Glock; it was just more of a timing thing.”

Stacy Williams, 44, of Fresno also bought her first gun last year — also a 9 mm — but for drastically different reasons.

She’s a local progressive activist who says she got worried last year after seeing a surge in white supremacists in the Fresno area, and she said she has been troubled by police officers appearing to side with the Proud Boys, suspicions that were confirmed Monday when the mayor said one of them was under investigation for being a member of the group.

Now, Williams is an interesting case and one I really want to address. I mean, while I suspect Jeffries is more indicative of much of the increased gun sales, Williams is the one that I think we need to talk about.

She’s a progressive activist. She probably disagrees with me on just about everything politically. Yet when she believed something represented a threat to her, she didn’t call the police. She didn’t trust the police. She armed herself.

While I’m sure I disagree with her on plenty, I don’t disagree this was the smart move.

See, even if I think here fears are unreasonable, that doesn’t negate them. It also doesn’t necessarily mean she’s wrong. She’s the one in the best position to determine whether or not she’s in need of a firearm. So, she used that judgment and purchased one.

Good for her.

Yet it’s funny how many of her fellow progressives can badmouth police out of one side of their mouth and, out of the other, demand we give up our guns and trust our security to those very same police. It makes absolutely no sense.

I don’t know Williams, so maybe she does it as well, but in this instance, she did exactly what I think anyone with concerns should do. They should be proactive about their own safety and get a firearm.

In the meantime, gun sales don’t appear to be slowing down much in California or anywhere else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

California to Give Gun Owners New 90-Day Window to Register ‘Assault Weapons’ by JORDAN MICHAELS

California AG Xavier Becerra presided over a disastrous “assault weapon” registration in 2018. (Photo: Xavier Becerra Facebook)

The state of California has agreed in a settlement to provide another 90-day window to allow gun owners to register their legally owned “assault weapons.”

Gun-rights groups argued in a lawsuit that the state’s registration website was down for much of the week prior to the previous deadline, which put thousands of gun owners in legal jeopardy. Gun owners who tried but failed to register their “bullet button” semi-automatic rifles due to technical difficulties will not be prosecuted for missing the previous July 1, 2018, deadline, according to the settlement.

“We’ve always believed that this was about giving gun owners a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law and not be made felons at the stroke of midnight because the State couldn’t operate a website,” noted George M. Lee, an attorney for the pro-gun side. “With the Court’s approval, the injunction will afford significant legal protections for possibly tens of thousands of gun owners.”

The Second Amendment Foundation also celebrated the win.

“It’s fair to say our lawsuit prevented guns from being banned and confiscated, and their owners from being prosecuted,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb.

As GunsAmerica reported at the time, hundreds of individuals contacted gun-rights groups in the wake of the July 1st deadline. Some reported constant crashes and errors while using the California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS), and others reported being granted access to personal information that did not belong to them.

SEE ALSO: Exclusive: Public Records Prove California Gun Registration Was a Total Disaster

A total of 6,213 individuals successfully registered 13,519 “assault weapons” before the deadline. Franklin Armory’s Jay Jacobson said at the time he was “stunned that the number is so low.”

California has not yet announced when the 90-day window will begin, but they agreed in the settlement to accept online as well as paper registrations.

Now gun-rights groups in California are turning their attention to a much more momentous cause: overturning the “assault weapon” ban entirely.

“With this important agreement to protect the rights, liberty, and property of California gun owners behind us, we now look forward to striking down the State’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and restoring Second Amendment rights through our Miller lawsuit, other actives cases, and future litigation,” said the Firearm Policy Coalition’s Senior Director of Legal Operations, Adam Kraut.

SEE ALSO: Federal Judge Rules California Ammo Background Check Law Unconstitutional

Filed in 2019, Miller v. Becerra would overturn California’s ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez secured the case last year after striking down the state’s “high-capacity” magazine ban and the state’s requirement to pass a background check before purchasing ammunition.

Anti-gun groups were livid when Judge Benitez was assigned the case while gun-rights groups are hopeful that he’ll hand down a favorable ruling.

To read all the terms of the latest settlement, click here.

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns Allies California Cops

San Francisco Police Commissioner Acknowledges Guns Save Lives By Tom Knighton

AP Photo/ Rick Bowmer
California officials are strange.

A lot of us joke about the weirdness that comes out of California, but I’ve seen some really odd stuff. For example, anti-gun lawmakers removing laws specifically meant to reduce “gun crime.” That’s just one example, though, and you see it when you look at a specific context, namely that they’re not necessarily anti-crime but anti-gun owners. At least, that’s my take on it.

However, earlier this week, we had an official make a very odd admission on Twitter.

 

Now, for most of us, the name John Hamasaki means less than jack squat. For San Franciscans, though, his name means something. He’s one of the city’s police commissioners.

That’s right. He’s admitting that guns save lives.

And he didn’t react well to people who thought he might have been joking.

 

Now, let’s evaluate this for a moment. The NYPD confiscated a firearm from a 17-year-old, someone far too young to legally possess a firearm. In swoops a San Francisco police commissioner to tell them that while that might make things safer, it might also cost that 17-year-old his life because he doesn’t have the means to protect himself.

This is someone who was actually breaking the law when found with the firearm.

What Hamasaki is doing is apparently arguing that such people should be permitted to carry their firearms because it may solely be for self-defense.

Meanwhile, San Francisco and the entire state of California are downright hostile to law-abiding citizens trying to get firearms, and here we have a San Francisco police commissioner openly stating that a firearm in the hands of someone who can’t legally have one may just be for self-defense.

Well…ain’t that special?

Of course, he’s not incorrect. Much like we law-abiding types, criminals also carry guns for protection. They fear for their life as well. One major difference, though, is that they’re often doing something that will run them afoul of other armed people who are likely to decide to shoot them.

Most of us don’t make those kinds of enemies.

My question of Hamasaki is whether or not he will speak out against the draconian gun restrictions that exist in the state of California, particularly the conceal carry licensing system that makes it virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to get such a permit. After all, if he can advocate in favor of a 17-year-old kid in New York carrying a gun, surely he can advocate for law-abiding citizens in his city and state, right?

Somehow, I doubt he will.

See, unfortunately, the stance of so many people in our larger cities is that anything a criminal does should be explained away. These are the people advocating for no bail to put bad people back on the streets while also advocating for taking our guns. I’m sorry, but how does that work?

As Hamasaki noted, guns save lives. However, they don’t just save the lives of some punk in New York or San Francisco. They save the lives of law-abiding citizens who just want to be left alone from criminals who refuse to respect that desire.

 

Editor’s Note: Want to support Bearing Arms so we can tell the truth about Joe Biden and the Left’s radical gun control agenda? Join Bearing Arms VIP. Use the promo code GUNRIGHTS to get 25% off your membership.
Categories
California

Do count your Blessings!

Categories
California Darwin would of approved of this!

Oh the things one does when one is young, dumb & full of well you know!

Image result for yosemite national park
Yosemite National Park & the fools it attracts!

Categories
California

What the California State Flag should look like!

Categories
Born again Cynic! California Darwin would of approved of this!

Here is another one for consideration of getting a Darwin Award


What a waste of some good looking Hot Links is all I can say! Grumpy

Categories
Ammo Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

injunction-to-be-filed-in-lawsuit-challenging-california-ammo-law-train-wreck/#ixzz5tFQQUql1 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook Injunction To Be Filed In Lawsuit Challenging California Ammo-Law Train-Wreck

Barrels of Ammunition XM855Injunction To Be Filed In Lawsuit Challenging California Ammo-Law Train-Wreck
California – -(AmmoLand.com)- The problems encountered since the new ammunition background check system was put into effect on July 1st 2019, have far surpassed what we predicted, and we predicted a train wreck.
The approval process takes over a half hour per customer, instead of the promised two minutes. DOJ is imposing unnecessary and costly requirements on vendors.
Countless customers are being turned down by DOJ for lack of ID even if they have a California driver’s license. Law abiding people cannot get ammunition they need for sport or self-defense. Businesses may have to close as a result of this extreme regulatory burden.

“Newsom’s Prop 63 law is a business killing nightmare and a red-tape charade that is useless as a crime prevention measure,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel.

“This law puts a ridiculously excessive burden on Second Amendment rights and was designed to make it practically impossible for gun stores to make a profit or for people to use a gun for sport or self-defense. It’s part of Newsom’s effort to eliminate the “gun culture” – which he hates.” said Michel.
“We are going to ask the Court to put a stop to it immediately.”

CRPA, with NRA’s support, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago. The lead plaintiff in the case is gold medal-winning Olympic shooter Kim Rhode.
The CRPA legal team already got a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same judge who ruled in the Duncan 10+ magazine lawsuit.
We had to wait for the ammo law to take effect to seek an injunction, but now that the law has gone into effect and the infringements have been documented, CRPA plans to seek an injunction in the Rhode case next week.
If you’ve had problems buying ammunition, and particularly if you are an ammunition sales vendor having problems, please email us at ammosnafu@michellawyers.com so we can add your experience to the mountain of evidence documenting how this law has failed.
To review all of the materials that NRA and CRPA have put together about what these laws require and the lawsuit challenging them, visitmichellawyers.com/ammunition-california-laws-and-regulations/.
Gun rights supporters should not support other 2A groups promising to file their own legal challenges to the new ammo laws.
Although these may just be list building promotions for use in their future fundraising appeals, any new redundant lawsuit that might be filed would be duplicative, would complicate the legal process, greatly risks having a different (likely hostile) judge second-guess the good ruling we already got in the Rhode case, and jeopardizes the potential success of CRPA’s existing lawsuit.