Bearing Arms journalist Cam Edwards opened his Cam & Co episode with a simple question that sounds almost too logical for modern politics: if violent crime is falling fast, what happens to the “we have to do something” gun-control push?
Edwards framed it as a pattern he says he’s watched for years. When crime rises, gun-control advocates point at the numbers and demand sweeping new restrictions. When crime falls, he argues, the demand doesn’t disappear – it just changes its wording.
He even set the tone with a little honesty about the day: he said he was going “guestless,” felt like he was coming down with a cold, and needed the audience to “keep him company.” That casual start matters because the rest of his argument is less about one headline and more about how narratives get built and maintained.
Edwards’ main point was blunt: a historic decline in crime won’t derail the anti-gun agenda, because the agenda isn’t really tied to whether the numbers are up or down.
“Crime Is Plunging” And The Script Doesn’t Stop
Edwards said 2025 appears to have seen violent crime decline at record levels across the country. He suggested it could go down as the year with the largest one-year decline in the national homicide rate, and he floated the idea that the homicide rate could be the lowest in 50 or 60 years.
He also talked about individual cities reporting some of the lowest homicide numbers in decades, sometimes even the lowest ever, depending on the local history.
In Edwards’ telling, those facts should create a natural pause. If the emergency is easing, you would expect the emergency policies to cool down too.
But he argued the opposite happens. He said the gun-control message shifts from “we’ve got to do something” to “we’ve got to do more,” even when the numbers are moving in the right direction.
And that’s the core of his critique: when your policy pitch doesn’t change based on results, it starts to look like the results were never the real driver.
The Big City Examples Edwards Keeps Coming Back To
Edwards rattled through examples to show the decline isn’t isolated to one type of place.
He pointed to places like New York City reporting shootings at their lowest recorded levels, and said violence has dropped in major cities like Baltimore and Chicago.
Then he pivoted to a point he clearly enjoys making: the decline isn’t limited to states with strict gun laws. Edwards noted that even in “constitutional carry” states, some cities saw big drops too.
He used Birmingham, Alabama as a specific case. Edwards recalled that Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin had blamed permitless carry for a historic rise in homicides in 2024. But when the homicide rate dropped dramatically in 2025 – while permitless carry remained law—Edwards said the mayor didn’t offer a clear explanation tied to gun policy.
Instead, Edwards said, the messaging switched to crediting “other programs that are working.”
That’s not a tiny point. Edwards was basically arguing that gun policy gets blamed when things go wrong, but when the same policy exists and things improve, the credit gets handed elsewhere.
That kind of argument lands because it’s familiar. People see it in all kinds of political debates, not just guns. Outcomes get claimed when convenient and ignored when they complicate the story.
The New Mexico Fight Edwards Says Is A Preview Of 2026
Edwards didn’t spend the episode talking in abstractions. He anchored his argument in an op-ed he said was written by New Mexico State Senator Crystal Brantley and published in the Las Cruces Sun-News.
He told his audience that as 2026 legislative sessions begin in many states, familiar gun bills are likely to return, even in a year where violent crime appears to be falling.
Edwards quoted Brantley’s warning about what “progressive lawmakers in Santa Fe” intend to introduce. The list included legislation targeting federally licensed firearms dealers, tightening training requirements, expanding licensing rules, and increasing regulatory pressure on small businesses already under heavy state and federal oversight.
Edwards said Brantley also expects the return of another familiar effort: reviving an “assault weapons ban.”
He then pointed straight at New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, describing her as someone who has pushed a gun ban as a priority over multiple sessions.
Edwards acknowledged that the governor hasn’t gotten everything she wanted. He said she wanted a 14-day waiting period, but lawmakers imposed a 7-day waiting period instead. He added that this waiting-period measure has been struck down in court, and he said New Mexico is appealing.
His takeaway wasn’t “relax.” It was basically the opposite. Edwards said gun owners shouldn’t get complacent just because past sessions showed resistance.
He even drew a comparison to Virginia politics, arguing that positions can shift fast, especially when lawmakers feel pressure from party leaders or activist groups.
“Police Are Doing Their Jobs, But The System Is A Revolving Door”
Edwards leaned heavily on one section of Brantley’s argument that he said stood out at public safety hearings.
He quoted her describing testimony as “sober and consistent,” then summarized her message: police are making arrests, investigators are building cases, and officers are working in dangerous and demoralizing conditions.
But, Brantley argued, weak statutes, loopholes, and policy choices turn those efforts into a revolving door.
Edwards translated that into plain language: stop focusing on lawful gun owners and instead look at what’s actually breaking down inside the criminal justice system.
He said Brantley’s focus is especially sharp when it comes to juvenile justice.
The Juvenile Justice Problem Edwards Says Nobody Wants To Admit
Edwards said Brantley highlighted a situation in Las Cruces where Police Chief Jeremy Story presented evidence showing violent juvenile offenders openly bragging about the lack of consequences they face.
Edwards described Brantley’s account of messages and videos where juveniles mocked the system, celebrated violence, and showed off the ability to obtain weapons, including Glock handguns modified with illegal switches, despite repeated contact with the justice system.
Edwards kept returning to the same theme: these offenders don’t fear consequences because, in their experience, consequences are weak or inconsistent.
He broadened it beyond New Mexico and said it’s a national issue. Edwards talked about the juvenile justice system’s stated goal—rehabilitation—and admitted it’s emotionally difficult for adults to accept that some kids may be deep into repeat violent behavior.
But he argued the system isn’t equipped to deal with 13-, 14-, and 15-year-olds with lengthy violent histories, and that gap creates real public danger.
He also told a story he said he discussed last year: juveniles in New York state allegedly stole a car, rammed it into a gun store, stole firearms, and some were released to their parents with instructions to show up in court later.
Edwards said many cases end in plea deals and “slaps on the wrist,” which, in his view, teaches the worst lesson possible.
Even if someone disagrees with his politics, it’s hard to deny the emotional punch of that argument. When society tells people “rules matter,” but serious offenders experience very little enforcement, the message doesn’t stick.
The “Simplest Test” Edwards Says Exposes Bad Policy
Edwards said Brantley offers a test for any public safety proposal: does it restrain criminals, or does it burden the law-abiding?
He said Brantley argues Democrats keep missing that test, and he suggested the same critique applies nationwide, not just in New Mexico.
Then Edwards pivoted to something more specific, tying it to a legal fight he said he wrote about at Bearing Arms: the U.S. Department of Justice filing an amicus brief siding with plaintiffs in Rhode v. Bonta, challenging California’s ammunition background check scheme.
Edwards argued the DOJ brief says the law is unconstitutional for multiple reasons, but his main takeaway was practical: he claimed the system stops prohibited persons only rarely, while blocking lawful buyers far more often because of misidentifications.
He cited figures he said came from the DOJ’s discussion: in one year, California’s ammo checks stopped prohibited persons 141 times, which he described as about 0.03% of checks, while around 11% – roughly 60,000 checks – blocked lawful gun owners due to misidentification.
Edwards argued that’s evidence the law frustrates a civil right more than it advances public safety.
Now, here’s where the debate gets real. People who support such laws will say, “Even a small number of prohibited persons stopped matters,” and they’ll argue error rates can be fixed.
But Edwards’ point still sticks: when a policy causes massive false denials and creates a large burden on lawful people, the public is right to demand proof it’s worth the cost.
That’s not just a gun debate. That’s basic governance.
What Comes Next When Fear Stops Working?
Edwards ended with a warning that as 2026 sessions begin, there will be no shortage of proposals that claim public safety motives but, in his view, target the right to keep and bear arms.
And that brings the larger question behind your headline: if crime is dropping, what does the gun-control movement do next?
Based on Edwards’ argument, he believes the movement simply pivots from panic messaging to “finish the job” messaging. Instead of “crime is out of control,” it becomes “we can’t let up,” or “look how much better it could be.”
My own view is that this is where voters and lawmakers should slow down and demand something rare in politics: standards. If a policy is being sold as a solution, it should be tied to measurable outcomes, and it should be judged honestly when those outcomes improve or worsen.
Because if every year – good or bad – ends with the same list of restrictions, that list starts to look less like a response and more like a wish list.
Edwards is clearly arguing that’s exactly what’s happening. And even if someone thinks he’s overstating it, his larger challenge is fair: in a moment of falling crime, the burden should be on lawmakers to prove that “more” is necessary, and to show it targets the violent offenders—not the people who already follow the rules.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
