From Fox News:
Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would ‘not comply’
A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.
Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats’ impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country — amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws — Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.
“Please don’t legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. It has happened. You’ve already done it,” Muller said, referring to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the devices that use a semi-automatic weapon’s recoil to make it rapidly fire like an automatic. “I was a bump stock owner, and I had to make a decision: do I become a felon, or do I comply?”
Should the government pass an assault-weapons ban, Muller declared, “I will not comply.”
If precedent for non-compliance for every other confiscatory gun or magazine ban enacted at the state level holds up, neither will at least 97% of other gun owners.
Muller and others at the hearing focused on the practicality of a ban, pointing out what they claimed were mainly “cosmetic” differences between weapons such as the AR-15 and standard semi-automatic hunting rifles. This issue was also raised by Heritage Foundation senior legal policy analyst Amy Swearer when Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., went down the line of witnesses asking if they believed hunting rifles should be banned if they are semi-automatic.
Swearer said no, stating that there was no difference in the mechanics or function of an “assault weapon” or a semi-automatic hunting rifle.
Heritage posted the video of that testimony and it is awesome.
Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley, who recalled the recent mass shooting in her city, did not give a definitive answer to Sensenbrenner’s question, nor did Dr. Alejandro Rios Tovar, a trauma surgeon who treated victims of the attack in El Paso, Texas. Charlottesville, Va., Chief of Police RaShall Brackney indicated she was in favor of a ban on “any weapon that could be used to hunt individuals.”
Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., countered the idea of a hunting rifle ban by referring to his assault-weapon ban bill. Cicilline said that more than 200 weapons are exempt from the bill, so there is really no issue of eliminating hunting rifles.
That is until they decide that your long-range hunting rifle is a people hunting sniper rifle. Then it will be banned.
Swearer also noted that some features like barrel shrouds enhance the safety of a weapon for its user. But David Chipman, senior policy adviser at the Giffords Law Center, raised a counterpoint noting that a barrel shroud could allow a shooter to get a better grip on a weapon “in a way that would increase your ability to spray fire and kill more people” without burning their hand.
Which is utter horse-shit.
Congress and the Trump administration have been in talks for weeks regarding possible gun legislation, but discussion of taking away guns that are currently legal has led to criticism from both parties. After 2020 Democratic hopeful Beto O’Rourke declared during a debate, “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, AK-47,” Cicilline said, “That message doesn’t help.” President Trump said that O’Rourke was making it “much harder” to reach a deal on gun legislation with that sort of rhetoric.
Beto is going to outsell Obama on AR-15’s.
Trump’s focus when it comes to gun control has mainly been on background checks. The White House was also circulating a one-page document on Capitol Hill detailing a possible gun background-check proposal that would require private sellers – not just licensed vendors – to conduct background checks for all advertised sales, though Attorney General Bill Barr said Trump has not yet made a “firm decision” on what he ultimately will support.
An August USA Today poll showed that most American voters support increased background checks, with 85 percent of Republican voters supporting background checks for all gun sales. Presently, only federally licensed vendors are required to conduct background checks, allowing private individuals to sell without them under what has been referred to as the “gun show loophole.”
Give regular people access to NICS and no registration and call it a day. The Democrats get to say they passed UBC’s, the burden on law-abiding gun owners is marginal, call it a win-win and thank your lucky stars it’s not worse than that.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley told Fox News last week that he expected an announcement on new gun legislation “very soon.” Gidley said Trump wanted to make sure that any new laws would address actual problems and not just be “feel-good legislation.”
But the Democrats’ impeachment push could complicate matters. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had resisted impeachment, announced Tuesday that an impeachment inquiry would be launched. Reflecting how policy debates could take a back seat, Pelosi said in private meetings with lawmakers that Trump called her to discuss gun legislation, but she soon changed the subject to his phone call with the Ukrainian president in which they discussed investigating Joe Biden, which stoked the latest calls for impeachment.
This is the effect of Stage 5 TDS. I can’t complain too much about it because I am happy to watch the Democrats sink any attempted gun control by pivoting towards impeachment every other minute, thereby alienating the Republicans and getting any sport of bipartisan support for it.
It’s all mess up on the Hill. The only good news is that the Democrats are so hell-bent for leather on nailing Trump on something that they are scuttling their own drive for strict gun control.
5 thoughts on “News from the Swamp on an AWB”
“President Trump said that O’Rourke was making it “much harder” to reach a deal on gun legislation with that sort of rhetoric.”
Idiot. Never interrupt the fake taco when he’s making a mistake.
I say we make a deal on UBC with a caveat of no registration and in return we get National Concealed Carry, passage of the hearing protection act, repeal of the NFA, Gun control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment. Ahhh one can dream.
Fboyj, it seems lately I am seeing more gun owners saying the same thing; ‘let’s make a deal’. What is being argued here is to not if it is proper to pay the extortion but how much should the extortion cost. You, and other gun owners, argue to accept a bill not yet passed into law if they will eliminate current laws.
Beyond that sounding absolutely ridiculous is the consideration of what to do next when they push more anti-gun legislation? How much more are you willing to surrender? History has aptly shown that no matter how much you give, the push won’t stop. Standing slackjawed while muttering ‘B-b-but you said that was gonna be the last.’ is not a winning strategy.
Not one more inch.
No deals. Gun owners have made too many deals already. Read and follow the constitution. Compromise always works only for the gun grabbers.
The difficulty is ASSUMING that their “word” is worth anything.
“Oohhh, we Pinky Swear, we’ll NEVAH, NEVAH, ask for any more restrictions!”, It turns out, is bullshit. Regularly, they out themselves ON THE RECORD, with comments such as “a good first step”.
If a riot was allowed into your front yard, because they promised to stop there, and, once in your yard, called that “a good first step”, what would be your response?
Mine would be to respond with appropriate force. Starting with anyone showing a flame.
Login or register to comment.