Can the Divide Between 2A and Gun Control Advocates be Bridged?

Okay, well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right

of the people that keep in their arms shall not be infringed.

Welcome to another edition of Barry and Arms, Kevin Company.

My name is Kevin Edwards.

I'm glad you're with me on the program today.

We're going to be talking with David Yamene from Wake Forest University about this bridging

the divide program.

I've read about this several times at Barry and Arms over the last two weeks or so, I guess.

This is a effort by a Tufts University professor named Michael Siegel to get together gun

owners, second of an advocates, gun control advocates, and come up with a list of proposals

that both sides could agree upon.

The first time I had a chance to look at this proposal or these proposals, I had basically

an outline, a general outline of what they were recommending.

I have since had the opportunity to delve more deeply into the 67 page document.

My first thought was there's some good ideas here.

There's also a lot of things that could be problematic and that I could not ultimately endorse

the group came up with after looking at the 67 page in-depth policy proposals, I stand

by that initial assessment.

There are some good things that are offered there, but there are also a lot of things that

I just typically can't support.

Now that is not to take away from any of the efforts of the gun owners and second of

an advocates who participated in this group.

I am very pleased that David Yamene agreed to sit down and talk about it.

He was one of the panelists and there's a great conversation.

Again, I really appreciate David taking time out of his busy schedule to sit down with

us.

Let's learn more about bridging the divide and why perhaps the divide still remains.

Take a look and listen.

David, thanks so much for coming on the program.

It's good to see you again.

Yeah, absolutely.

It's always a pleasure to get together and chat with you about the news of the day and

other things that are going on.

Yeah.

And I've got to tell you, as a Virginia gun owner, I'm starting to envy you in North

Carolina.

Things are going to be looking a lot better in North Carolina than Virginia, I think, in

terms of our segment and rights here before long.

Yeah.

Well, it's unfortunate, and I know you and others predicted that this is what was going

to happen.

Unfortunately, as a liberal gun owner myself, I don't feel like there's really any space

in the party to represent the kind of positions that we would want to have on this issue, even

if we agree on some of the other issues, which, you know, maybe a good segue to talk

about bridging the divide, right?

So this was a group that put together by a Tufts University professor at Michael Siegel,

comprised of gun owners, second amendment advocates, and then folks with the gun control

space as well.

And the idea was what, David, what was the purpose of this project?

And in your opinion, how would you put it?

Yeah.

And I think one of the things that we did in the project, because we did have so many

diverse people, and we had a actual professional facilitators, where we're supposed to not speak

for other people, or always supposed to speak for ourselves.

And so, you know, I can say that what attracted me to the project was this idea that gun rights

and public safety are not mutually exclusive.

And so the opportunity to join a conversation with people who were very strong second amendment

advocates, and also very strong gun regulation advocates, and see what would come of a deliberative

facilitated dialogue, that's what really drew me into it.

And I know that other people have different starting points, but that was my starting point.

And this was, what came about was, was reached by consensus, right?

So not unanimous approval was required, right?

But must a sort of a majority support for a proposal meant that this would get into the

final document?

Is that kind of how it worked?

Yeah, they were, you know, they were looking really for upwards of 90% support.

So consensus wasn't, you know, 51% or 60% or 2 thirds, and each of the eight policy proposals,

I think the least amount of support for any of them was the community gun violence proposal,

which had 20 out of 23 people consenting to that plank.

And I actually was one of the three people who didn't consent to that particular plank,

but the others were actually supported unanimously or had one typically one person who didn't

consent.

So it really was the result of a long, year long deliberation over many hours as well

as a process of people saying, you know, is this something, not that I love every part

of it, but more sort of, can you live with this?

Do you think that the potential downsides are not so significant that it wouldn't be worth

trying?

Okay.

And you talk about this year long process.

So how many sessions were there of you all meeting in person, or at least maybe, you

know, meeting online, you know, hashing things out?

How many hours do you think that took?

I think that they calculated about 70 hours of virtual meetings, plus we had two weekend

long in person meetings.

So we started meeting early in 2025, and the first meetings weren't even to talk about

policy.

Really just to get comfortable with one another, to learn about each other, to get a sense

of what our beliefs and values were, you know, I think that was part of the magic that

of the process.

It wasn't just, okay, let's sit down and start throwing out policy ideas, but, you know,

let's sit down and build some trust and understand that the people we were there with, even

if we didn't agree with them politically or in terms of policy, that they were there

with in a genuine spirit.

So, you know, from there, we met about monthly, but then also realized that we weren't going

to make much progress in a group of 23 people.

So some working groups were composed to develop specific ideas and then bring them back to

the group.

By the time we met in June, in June, we were supposed to just sign off on all the policies

and have a little celebration, but we, you know, we were still in the process of grinding

out different visions of the specific policies.

So we had to commit to continuing our work beyond June, and then we met in November for

a final sign off in there.

That's when we kind of took the final, the final votes and, you know, the document was released

just recently.

Yeah.

And at 67 pages, we're not going to be able to get into, I think, every policy proposal

here in Deb.

You know, I've written about this the first time I took a look, I really did not have access

to the 67 page document.

I had a rough outline.

And, you know, and I had some, some, some questions and some issues with some of these

proposals.

Having looked at the 67 page document, I still have some concerns about some things,

but I, I want to talk about, you know, some of the areas where I, I feel like I've,

I've talked a lot about the things I disagree with, and I did want to talk with you about

some of the things that I, I think are a good ideas.

But before we do that, I, I want to talk about one of the areas that you mentioned that

you did not sign off on, and that was the Community Gun Violence Intervention proposals.

In theory, this is something that I am supportive of.

If we can, again, go after violent crime, that putting more laws on the books without

impacting, you know, law binding gun owners, I'm, I'm in favor of that.

At the same time, you know, I've seen programs that operate without a lot of oversight.

Over a decade ago, I covered a group called No Guns, which is based out of L.A., former

gang member Hector Big Weasel Marokin was in charge of this program.

God, I think over a million dollars in the grant money.

He really wasn't, he may have been a former gang member, but he was still very much involved

in the lifestyle.

He was ultimately arrested and convicted for selling guns to ATF agents under cover.

And we've seen, you know, employees like violence interruptors with ceasefire and Baltimore

Chicago.

They also have been arrested, charged with violent crimes, charged with legal gun possession.

So, you know, I think that these programs do have to operate with a lot of oversight,

a lot of accountability, a lot of transparency.

What was your hesitation and why did you ultimately decide, yeah, I can't agree to what's proposed

here with the Community Violence Intervention Programs.

Yeah.

Well, let me go back to the start if I could because.

One of the things about doing this kind of project is that where do you even start?

You know, it's such a huge issue.

It's a long standing issue.

And so when Michael Siegel convened us, he really gave us a very particular charge, which

was to think about policies that would respect gun rights that would encourage responsible

gun ownership and that could reduce firearms related harms.

And that these would be proposals that could be introduced in red states.

I'm recognizing that, you know, a lot of, there's already a lot of policies in blue states.

And as we see, there's more policies coming all the time.

So he really thought the target should be these red states, which could benefit from some

additional policies around gun related harms, but that would respect gun rights.

So my objection to including the Community Violence Interruption material was that I didn't

think that it would play well in red states, you know, that it is something that requires

a lot of kind of infrastructural investment.

And you know, we see some of the resistance to the stronger communities act or whatever

the name of that bill that was passed under the vitamins.

Yeah.

So, you know, CBI was a big part of that and there was a lot of resistance to that.

And so I thought if you, if you slip this in there, then people are just going to see

it as more of the same and that it sort of detracts from our initial mission.

Now, as a liberal gun owner, I really support these because I think they're really good

ways of reducing gun violence without restricting guns at all.

You know, it's, these are ideal in, in that sense, but so it wasn't more, it wasn't really

a philosophical opposition to these, but it was really an issue of remembering the roots

of where we started, which was, hey, these are targeted toward, you know, red states and

that I just didn't think that this would be attractive.

And I thought it could turn some people in those states off.

You know, I'm glad that you talked about that.

BJ Campbell, who was one of your co-panelists, made a comment in a sub-stack post that he

wrote about sort of how the sausage was made.

He, he too said, you know, the idea was, what could we get red states to support?

Not necessarily, what could we get blue states to roll back?

And, you know, my most recent piece, I wrote something on Sunday about this.

And, you know, this is one of the things, honestly, David, that kind of rubs me the wrong

way, right?

Because on some level, what you are asking then is, what is the, what is the ceiling

that, you know, that gun owners or red state lawmakers could support?

And on some level, right, we're talking about universal background checks.

We're talking about red flag laws.

We're talking about gun dealer liability.

We're not talking about things like assault bands, magazine bands, waiting periods.

But there's nothing to stop the gun control advocates that were a part of this

panel from continuing to argue for those positions, right?

But if a red state or if Second Amendment advocates say, okay, listen, I embrace this blueprint.

And then on some level, you are embracing, you know, in theory anyway, red flag laws,

universal background checks, right?

Things of that nature.

And so this does to me fundamentally come across as how do we implement more gun control laws

in red states?

And yes, there may be trade-offs, right?

There are benefits that are provided along with that.

But you're still asking gun owners to accept the premise

that some of these gun control laws are useful, necessary, and constitutional.

A hundred percent.

And, you know, I think, again, not supposed to speak for other people,

but I think that Michael Siegel makes clear.

There's, you know, there's, I have like, you know, there's a lot there.

But it, you know, it does make clear that where he's the idea that he had for this project in

the first place was, you know, how can we get the gun violence prevention program more in moving

in a positive direction by bringing gun owners and gun rights advocates to the table, right?

Like, you know, because this is where some of the impediment is to that, as you rightly point out.

And so, you know, if you take the position, which I was there's many people I know in respect,

we take the position that even if there are some wins in here for gun rights advocates or for

gun owners that on balance, it's not worth the trade-offs. You know, I respect that and I think

this is good. This is a real issue, you know, that we did have, I think, on the panel, I have

it written now. So, I kind of went through the panelists and, you know, I think they're clearly

13 of the 23 who clearly come out of a gun violence prevention background and not including

Michael Siegel, who also comes from that background. I think there are seven people who are really

very strongly kind of gun rights advocates. And, you know, I count myself as neither because I

feel like I'm just a scholar of gun culture, but I was there to represent the fact that guns are

normal and normal people own guns. But, you know, the panel itself was tipped to the gun violence

prevention side, which meant that people like BJ and Rob had to work two or three or four times

as hard, you know, to get the perspectives of gun rights advocates reflected in the documents,

you know, even though part of the shared principles was, you know, that the responsible gun

ownership is a constitution protected right. And, you know, that, that has, that should be

respected in everything we do. So, you know, the, if for the people who feel like, you know,

this is another version of gun violence prevention, I, I couldn't argue strongly against that.

Um, and okay, well, I, I'm, I'm gladly respect my position and I respect, you know, honestly,

I respect everybody involved in this process, even if I don't, even if I can't endorse the

other final document. One of the interesting things about this reading that BJ's sub-stag post was,

you know, just the humanizing of the other side. Uh, and BJ talked about sitting down for

dinner with Jonathan Lowey, who was, you know, formerly with the Brady campaign now with global

action against violence. Um, he spearheaded Mexico's lawsuit against US gun makers. He's still very

much involved in litigation side of things. Um, and, you know, I'll give all the credit of the world

of BJ. I don't know that I can sit down with Jonathan Lowey. Uh, I, I just don't know that I

personally could do that. And I have a lot of respect for BJ for being able to sit down

because I like to think of myself as open-minded. I like to think of myself as somebody who can

talk to the other side. But when I read that, I was like, boy, I don't know that I could put

myself in that position and have a civil conversation about, you know, what kind of food we like or

non-gun topics. Um, was that, do you think that was fruitful to both give some second-member perspectives

or some second-member advocates that perspective, okay, you know, these people aren't all, you know,

bloodthirsty communists who are interested in a disarmant assault. Um, and then, you know,

for the Jonathan Lowey's on the panel, this idea that, okay, um, you know, gun owners and second-member

advocates do care about public safety. They do care about suicide prevention. They do care about

making sure that, you know, kids don't get a hold of a fire accidently and hurt or kill themselves.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, I'm a pretty moderate person myself. I spent a lot of time, you know,

trying to bring light to this heated area. And, you know, so I definitely feel like there were

moments throughout where getting to know people on the other side doesn't make us political allies.

You know, we could still fight for our beliefs and positions very strongly. But I think it does

change the tenor. And I'll just relay up one particular moment where we were at the

endeavor kind of midway through the process meeting face-to-face for the first time.

And Rob Pinkis and John Jonathan Lowey were going back and forth about, you know,

him, he's suing gun companies, right? Rob's like, I own a gun company. If you sue gun companies,

you're not suing these abstract entities. You are suing potentially people like me, right?

And, you know, John's like, well, it's, you know, just the insurance companies pay out.

And he runs like, how do you think they get their money? And I really think that that affected

the way, you know, Jonathan sees people who are in the quote unquote gun industry. And that's where

I feel like, you know, him and BJ, for example, having, you know, some form of a friendship,

you know, could make a difference because if, you know, he's not going to stop suing gun companies,

for sure. But, you know, I think that as he sort of looks around and sees a more human face in the

gun industry, you know, that could affect the work he does down the road. So I just think it was,

it's really important for people who are gun owners and gun rights advocates to take a seat at

tables to where they're invited because you can, you know, it may be super frustrating and angry

for you, but you can also, you know, present a reasonable face of gun owners and say, look,

this is why I'm telling you that I don't want these assault weapons fans or magazine capacity

limits. You know, maybe people hear you and maybe they don't, but if you're not there, they for sure

aren't going to hear you. Right. Yeah. And I think that honestly, maybe the most valuable part of

of this whole endeavor. If there was, yeah, again, there are, I believe, what, eight different

proposals in this document. If there was one, David, that you really think red states or or

blue state lawmakers for that matter, it should really investigate. Like, what was the one that you

think that maybe you're most in favor of? Yeah, but I'd say the, the gun trafficking or plank,

you know, which really was a negotiation between, you know, this idea that very few gun dealers

are selling a lot of crime guns, which is sort of, you know, this is the Maui starting point and,

you know, Rob and BJ respond, well, hey, just because you're selling a lot of crime guns doesn't

mean that you're doing anything wrong. So, right, trying to figure out how to address that

concentration of crime gun sales, but not to inappropriately penalize people who are doing

nothing wrong. So developing best practices for gun sales and having a kind of task force that

would investigate people who are selling a lot of crime guns, make sure they're not doing anything

wrong and really kind of have that targeted level of sort of enforcement rather than burdening 90%

or 95% of gun dealers who are doing nothing wrong other than maybe making a mistake here and there.

So I like that aspect and then, you know, Rob and BJ sort of got in there that, hey, you know,

how about a state level placa, right, that if, you know, you can't be held liable for engaging in

commerce and someone doing something misusing something that you sold them perfectly reasonably

illegally. So, you know, I think that there's a lot in there that addresses the concern that I have

because I've heard of incredible cases, you know, is academy sports selling 15 versions of the same

gun to somebody on the same day for cash, right? To me, that just doesn't smell right. Maybe it's

perfectly fine, but maybe that needs some additional scrutiny. So, you know, the trapping of guns

into the gray and then into the black markets is one of the big reasons that we have some of the

criminal problems we have. And I think this really addresses this in a very focused and targeted

ways and really focuses on educating gun dealers who may be doing things wrong rather than just

coming in and penalizing them from the start. Or as you say, just labeling, you know, high volume

dealers as a problem, right? Because a percentage turns up, you know, like the ETFs demand one

program, which basically said, you know, if they have a certain number of guns that you sold,

ended up being traced within, I think it was a two-year period, they put you on this demand one

program, which became public, I guess, through a four-year request, you would say, today did a big

story on and I think working with every town for gun safety. Washington DC, the Metropolitan

Police Department was on that list because they were the only FFL in the District of Columbia,

right? I talked with Eric Delbert from LEPD, Farms and Range in Ohio. They were also on the list.

And Eric talked about going through each of these guns that were sold and then later traced and

he said, you know, several of them were stolen from the original buyer. You know, there's no evidence

that they dealer did anything wrong, but because that gun was traced, ended up being the dealer

ended up being flagged. So what you guys came up with is a, it sounds like it's a more focused

attempt to identify who the, who the problem dealers are, right? And it's not solely based on volume

of sales or, or even a percentage of firearms that are traced back to them. But I think, you know,

I think that's kind of a starting point, but it's not an assumption of, hey, you're selling a lot

of guns that are, you know, being recovered at crime scenes. So you've done something wrong or

done something illegal and we need to punish you. It's more of a, hey, you know, what's going on?

What are you guys doing? You know, what's happening here are some things to think about. You know,

so there's a lot of steps in the process before you kind of get to, okay, you're actually engaging in

criminal sort of punishable criminal behavior in the way that you're selling guns. So, you know,

I think the, the, the layers, the education, the reporting back, you know, I think that the,

you know, the, the idea that they're via task force that develops best practices for sales,

I would include gun owners, gun retailers in that process. You know, I think that as, you know,

even Jonathan Lowey admits, like most people who are in FFLs are trying to do the right thing.

They don't want to sell their guns in straw purchases or to people who have, you know, bad intentions.

And, you know, maybe, and I've never been a retailer. So I don't know what that problem bought

guns. I've never sold guns. So I don't know, you know, what that looks like to stand behind that

counter and trying to figure out, you know, who's, who's engaging in a straw purchase or not.

But I know that I know a lot of very responsible gun retailers who are on the lookout for that kind

of thing. And maybe they can teach some other, you know, gun retailers. Hey, here, here are some

of the things that you should be on the lookout for because I know you want to do the right thing.

Yeah. So I think, you know, just a default assumption, right, that that gun retailers are trying to

do the right thing versus gun retailers are, you know, complicit in the problem.

Yeah, absolutely. And certainly we hear that language from, you know, a lot of gun control groups

where they just, you know, paint with a very broad brush, right, the firearms industry, as a whole.

The, you know, and I do like the idea of the state level protection lawful commerce and

arms act. We do have that in a lot of red states already. The one concern I had about this

day, but is that, you know, we've seen, in recent years, states like New York, New Jersey,

even Virginia passed the law this session that I passed a bill that I presume Governor

Spamberger's got to sign. They're trying to get around the protection lawful commerce and arms act

by using public nuisance laws, by coming up with, you know, these sort of vague best practices.

And there is a carve out in the proposal that Bridget and the divide put together that

any action which a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable

to the sale or marketing of the product in which the violation was a approximate cause of the

arm for which we leave a sought, that to me was a red flag because that seems like the type of

language that we are seeing used to get around placa. Was that provision subject to any discussion

or debate on the group? By the group, do you remember? You know, I don't remember, but I do know that,

you know, this is, this is the kind of new revised big tobacco playbook to, we saw, you know,

the effectiveness in the Sandy Hook settlement. And we definitely see blue states passing these

kinds of laws with a specific intention to activate them down the road. So, you know, I think that

this is, is rightfully a cause for concern. I honestly don't recall discussing that particular

point. And, you know, that that could have been something that folks on the panel put in there

that those of us who were, you know, sort of looking for the red flags in there didn't just

simply didn't catch. Yeah. So that, you know, I think that that's a good catch on your part.

Well, and I'm curious, was there anything that you would have liked to have seen that didn't make

the cut? You know, as I was writing about this and I was thinking, and maybe my perspective was

different because I was thinking again about, you know, for trying to demonstrate that gun

ownership is a positive, right? That is normal. One of the things I would have loved to have seen

would have been, you know, an effort to make high school trap shooting in a credited sport.

You know, that I think would have allowed or I think that would allow for, you know, teaching

new generation had to be safe and responsible around firearms in a very fun way.

So I'm just curious, was there anything that you would have wanted to see that just kind of

didn't make it into the final document? Yeah, I think here's where my sort of limits as a policy

analyst, I think really come in. I, you know, for most of my time and I'm about 15 years as a gun

owner and 14 years studying gun culture. And up until 2025, I really have purposely stayed out of

gun policy debates. And so, you know, entering this arena really took me out of a natural comfort zone

that I have. So, you know, I kind of thought as each thing came up sort of, how would this affect me

as a kind of end user and how would it affect those other people? And so I think that there were

a lot of protections and it put in there that I was very happy with and that I think would make

my life a little better and that would move us forward. So I can't think of anything in particular.

I did like the the education policy, which yet, you know, when we started, there were really

three areas that Mike really wanted to cover based on his research that he thought would be the

most effective one. One was the universal background checks. One was her pose and I have it,

the other was including violent misdemeanors as a prohibition. But in our discussions early on,

when people were articulating, hey, here's where I'm coming from, all of these other kind of ideas

started coming out. This is part of why the process took so much longer than Mike had originally

bought. And, you know, for me, the education policy, I thought was really important to get some sort

of firearms education going. And again, states and localities can decide, you know, what's appropriate

for their area, but whether it's elementary school, middle school, high school, you know,

that not treating guns as something that can't be spoken about, that talking about guns as a

reality in society. So I, you know, I was very much in favor of adding that whole policy. And,

you know, so that, I think that was an area where they weren't intending to have that initially,

but that it, you know, the course of our conversations that came out as being something important.

Well, again, I appreciate you taking the opportunity to sit down with us and talk more about how

this document came to be, the debate and the discussion that happened internally. As I said,

I, you know, I can't sign off on the final document. I do think there are some worthy ideas in

there, you know, we're going to suicide prevention, voluntary offside storage. There's a lot,

I, listen, I don't discourage any alumnaker from taking a look at this document. And maybe there's,

you know, one or two things in there that they say, okay, I could get on board with this in a way

that doesn't impact our segment of rights. I, I do want to ask you, though, David, before we let you

go, you know, because you talked about being a liberal gun or we talked about how things were going

in Virginia. Do you see, I mean, listen, obviously, you know, in Minnesota, I think, you know,

the ice operation led to a number of, you know, non-traditional non-conservative

Minnesotans embracing their segment rights. I know that concealed carry permit applications,

the highest. I think that they've been in several years. Gun seals in Virginia are way up. And I

was talking with John Comerford from Inter-A's Institute for Legislative Action earlier. He said,

you know, I know some moderates who are asking me what type of AR-15 I should buy right now.

If you go to the liberal gun owners Reddit, there are a lot of Democrats in Virginia who are

very upset. Maybe a small percentage of Democrat voters as a whole, but I'm curious, do you see any

sort of change either on the ground in terms of liberals' thoughts on the Second Amendment? Now that,

you know, we've got a Trump administration in place. And do you have any idea what if anything

could be done to reflect that within the Democratic Party? Yeah, I have two great questions.

I think, you know, to the first question, I definitely see a lot of activity and constantly

fielding media calls to try and explain why liberals are, you know, becoming so interested in guns.

And I think, you know, again, my take on that is that part of it's a very long-term process of

gun culture 2.0, right? Defensive gun culture that a lot of people see guns as a viable option

when you're concerned about your personal security. But I think what's shifted very recently

with the especially the Second Trump administration, and especially with the Minnesota

of the House, pretty shooting, is that liberals are now more freely talking about the anti-teerany

side of the Second Amendment and gun rights, which, you know, I didn't hear that quite as often.

I hear that often from my more conservative gun-owning friends. And, you know, the idea that, well,

maybe actually government tyranny is something that we should be concerned about.

I think that's fairly novel. Now, getting from that and from liberals purchasing guns and

starting to respect that reality to a Democratic Party that respects gun rights, that's a big step

and the fact that, you know, our legislatures and our so gerrymandered, right? But if you are

running for office in Virginia or any of the state legislative seats, you're pretty safe,

you know, I don't know how many Republican seats they have carved out, presumably fewer than

the Democratic seats. But if you're running in a safely blue seat, you don't have to compromise.

You're going to generate someone who's more from the left wing of the party and

and then, unfortunately, the party nationally and at the state levels are just still bought into

very typical gun restrictions. And I think that's unfortunate. I don't know how you get that to

change without a huge kind of ground swell and kind of fixing or polarized legislative system.

And, you know, a lot of people have said like, why are you focusing on red states with these

policies? I think that for the reason, because Mike, that's what he wanted to do in part. But I think

that there's things in here where if blue states start proposing some of these policies,

you know, to say, hey, if you wanted to do that, there are some things that you may want to

take into consideration. And I was, you know, I think we're all bought from the start that,

and this all-weapons van and magazine capacity limit was just a non-starter. It was never discussed

at all in the panel. And so to try to, you know, take a package like this and say, hey, look,

a lot of gun violence prevention people signed off on this. There's no assault weapons ban in here.

Stop pushing this stupid law that's not going to make us appreciably safer.

You know, I'm not optimistic, but it is, you know, one more thing to bring to the table.

Well, again, David, I really appreciate all your contributions.

You know, both in terms of just, you know, covering gun culture, but also waiting into the policy

debates. You and I may not agree on everything, but I think you're a very thoughtful individual.

I certainly appreciate your perspective, and I love the fact that we can have these types of

conversations. So thanks for this some time of me today. Enjoy the rest of your spring break,

and I hope we get a chance to do this again soon. Anytime I appreciate you giving me the

opportunity. Absolutely. Thanks, David. Thank you.

Thanks to David for joining us on the program. I look forward to talking to him again in the

not too distant future. All right. Now let's start attention to today's armed citizen story.

Our good deed of the day and our recidivist reporter will start there with a case out of California.

Here's the headline. Teen arrested for bringing guns to Orville High School faces additional

robbery charges. Now, first, it should be noted. Again, this is California here.

All of the gun control laws that are in place in California could not stop a 17-year-old who

was already on probation from illegally acquiring a firearm. So what does that tell us about

the efficacy of California's gun laws? Do a great job of impinging and infringing on the rights

of law-abiding citizens, but when it comes to actually stopping violent criminals, not so much.

So according to action news now in California, this 17-year-old

was apparently arrested after school staff received a tip and detained the teen in a school office.

Police in Orville say the suspect actually jumped out of a window at the school before police

arrived. But county DA Mike Ramsey said the teen was already on probation and was wearing an

ankle monitor, which allowed police to track him down in a nearby backyard fairly quickly. Nobody

said this teen was the sharpest tool in the shed. Ramsey said the teenager had two hand guns and

two high capacity magazines, also illegal under California law. The guns were recovered in a bag

that Mike Ramsey said the teen discarded her in the chase. Ramsey said that the 17-year-old

was on probation for previous convictions of grand theft as well as battery last year.

He is now facing several new charges, including having firearms in large capacity magazines at

school, as well as possessing those items for sale, and an armed robbery that he allegedly

participated in in Chico, California last month, where he and another teen accused of robbing two

young men on the streets there in Chico. Police say that the teen made no direct threats to

students or staff last Friday when he was arrested. His name has not been released because he is a

minor. But again, this is California's juvenile justice system at work, right? You've got a

individual who is convicted or pleads guilty to multiple crimes, grand theft, battery,

gets a slap on the wrist, wear this ankle monitor, check in with your probation officer,

every so often. Clearly, this did not make much of an impression on the 17-year-old. If he was caught

in possession of two handguns on school property, if he is accused of committing an armed robbery

last month, while also apparently on probation. And also apparently subject to that ankle monitor.

So what were the terms of his probation? Was he allowed to leave Orville, California? Was he

allowed to go to Chico, California? Was he allowed to be out of the street after a certain time?

Again, you can have all the laws that you want. But unless you're actually getting tough on

violent offenders, the laws aren't going to do any good. At least if the laws are meant to improve

public safety. Now, if the laws are meant to discourage legal gun ownership, well, that's

something else entirely, isn't it? And unfortunately, that is, I believe, what most of the

gun laws in California are all about. They're not about targeting violent offenders, right?

I mean, armed robbery is a crime in and of itself. Battery is a crime in and of itself.

Aggravated assault is a crime in and of itself. But these possessory offenses, possessing a large

capacity magazine, possessing a handgun without a background check being performed, possessing

an ammunition that was purchased out of state and brought across state lines. These are all

victimless crimes. These aren't violent offenses. These instead are offenses designed to turn

lawful gun owners into criminals. And California specializes in these times of laws.

Meanwhile, again, a 17-year-old on probation or an anico-monitor can easily avoid these laws

and illegally acquire firearms, ammunition, and he has magazines that have been banned for

sale in California for quite some time. All right, onto today's armed citizen story from

Darian Connecticut, where a homeowner shot at mass suspects who allegedly broke into their home.

This was over the weekend in Darian. Three mass suspects allegedly found a key hidden outside

of a home and were able to get inside when they were confronted by the homeowner. I said,

this was over the way there's actually last Thursday. Before these intruders were able to get inside,

another family member called 911 when they saw these suspects kind of hanging out on their front

porch. The homeowner saw that at least one of the suspects was armed with a handgun according to

police. And so the homeowner, in justifiable fear for himself and his family,

discharged his gun with these suspects, according to police, who immediately fled the area.

A male juvenile, potentially matching the description of one of the suspects arrived at

Bridgeport Hospital with a gunshot wound, taken into surgery. Detectives continue to investigate

his possible involvement in this incident. The other two individuals apparently got away,

no reports of any arrest at this time. The vehicle that the suspects used in this case

was determined to be stolen from a home in Fairfield, Connecticut, according to law enforcement.

So you got to wonder, I mean, was this a crime of opportunity? Was this a targeted attack? Did

they know that there was a key outside the home somewhere? We don't have answers, but it does sound

like, again, there was malicious, certainly malicious intent involved. And the homeowner not

arrested. At this point, again, everything points to a legitimate use of a force and self-defense

and defense of others. So we'll keep our eyes open for any more details out of a daring

Connecticut that may become available here in the future. And finally, today are a good deed

of the day in the right place at the right time. We'll be able to do the right thing. A man in

Bonner Springs, Kansas, who ran into a burning home to save his neighbors, the elderly couple he

rescued are in critical condition, but they are alive. Thanks to his efforts,

bird high was walking his dogs Monday evening. He saw a flame shooting from the front door of

a neighbor's home, according to KCTV. He said, when I walked around the corner, I saw there was

a fire in the entryway. And there were two people in there and they were yelling for help.

So, hey, uh, hi, handed his dogs to a neighbor who was also outside and then ran towards the home.

He said he tried to do a clear burning furniture from the entryway so that he could get to

the elderly woman inside who uses a walker. He said, there were like eight, 10 feet flames on

the right hand side of the entryway since she was right there screaming for help. He said,

we got all tangled up in her walker and went down together and I couldn't pull her out.

He tried to push the couple towards the back of the home, but he said the fire was growing,

the passage narrowed. He said he was unable to get either resident out before first responders

arrived. He said, it didn't work out very well, but I'm in peace with my efforts. I'm glad I tried.

I'm very worried for them. While he was trying to get them out of the home, other neighbors

brought their fire services out of their homes using garden hoses to try to combat the flames.

A former firefighter who lives nearby also helped to manage conditions, try to direct everybody

before those first responders arrived. When first responders did get there, both residents

still inside the home. They were able to pull one resident out through the front doorway

and then fire crews actually had to break through, I guess, the back door of the home

and remove the second individual. But Bonnie Springs Police Captain Heather Page says that

high-sactions, he was not able to successfully get those individuals out of the home,

may very well have been critical to the outcome. She said, had he not been walking the dogs

and noticed the fire. We have no idea how long we've taken for somebody else to notice it and

make that 911 call. It could have absolutely saved their lives. So in the right place,

at the right time, they're able to do the right thing. Sometimes you're not always able to

successfully effectuate that rescue. But it also sounds like a high-may have been able to push

at least one of these individuals to an area of the home where it was not fully engulfed in flames

by the time that the fire crews arrived and may very well have saved that individual's life as well.

Again, a last report, both the couple are in critical condition. Hopefully they make a full recovery.

But the efforts of high and those other neighbors too, coming together at just a moment's notice

to try to save and help neighbors in need. I mean, honestly, that is heroism on its own,

in my opinion. So we thank you for every one of those good deeds there in Bonnie Springs, Kansas.

And I want to thank you for being a part of the program. As always, looking forward to seeing

you back here again tomorrow, I'm not sure what our main topic of conversation is going to be.

We may end up talking about Harmie Dylan's recent trip to the range. And the criticism

that she received, everything from her shooting stance to her grouping, it was not a good look,

honestly, for Second Amendment advocates. You know, we should be encouraging people to get to

the range. We should be offering them positive encouragement, even if we don't think they're shooting

as well as we would, or even shooting as well as we think they should. When we engage in these

types of efforts, we're not being good ambassadors for the Second Amendment. And in a country where we

don't have a majority of governors, I think it is incumbent on all of us who care about a right to

keep their arms, to welcome new shooters, to encourage people to get to the range. And not to

belittle their efforts when they do. So we may be talking about that. There's obviously a lot of

other legislation going on. Be sure to check out barriardarms.com throughout the day today. By the way,

we've got you covered on all the latest Second Amendment news and information from all across the

nation, including the veto of a Second Amendment bill in Wyoming. We've got more news, including

a big story out of Michigan, or at least it should be a big story about the use of red flag laws.

This is going to be for our VIP members later today. It's going to be digging into some of the details

that really show the flaws of these red flag laws. And again, going back to our conversation with

David Yominay. I mean, this is one of the things that bridging the divide recommended a red flag

law that has more due process protections than what we typically see for sure. But it is still

ultimately a a gun centric take on how to deal with individuals who pose a danger to themselves

or others. And that danger is not alleviated, simply by taking guns away, which is one of the

reasons why I am not in favor of red flag laws. I think that they are an excuse among other things.

They are an excuse for lawmakers to avoid doing the more difficult work of repairing our broken

mental health system. So we'll be talking about that at barriardarms today as well. If you like,

would you see I would encourage you to become a VIP VIP gold or VIP platinum member.

Just go to barriardarms.com slash subscribe. Use the promo code fight. And if you can get 60% off

your membership, you'll get great benefits no matter what tier of support you choose. And no

matter what tier you choose, you will be supporting the independent pro-secondman journalism that

we're doing after your arms. And I want to thank you for that support because it does make a

difference. Enjoy the rest of your hump day Wednesday. We'll see you back here tomorrow until then. Be

well. Be safe. And be free.