Category: Politics

Suppressing the Truth About Suppressors

Big government leftists aren’t only trying to silence your voice on social media and through the Department of Homeland Security’s new Ministry of Truth, they’re also trying to silence your ability to simply possess a firearm suppressor.

Hollywood, the “besties” of the left, likes to make it seem as if a suppressor completely silences a firearm, as seen by clever TV assassins and action-movie stars. Last year, New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman backed this up, calling silencers “tools of murder.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (also from New Jersey) said, “Gun silencers are dangerous devices with one purpose and one purpose only—to muffle the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims.”

I’ll give you one guess as to which two Washington politicians have been watching a few too many Hollywood movies. Hint: they’re the same two who introduced legislation in 2021 to ban all Americans from simply possessing a gun suppressor. Not using one. Possessing one.

Gun suppressors (called “sound moderators” in the UK) only decrease the noise of a gunshot by 20 to 35 decibels. That leaves them still “louder than your average ambulance siren,” according to an article by the Associated Press posted by Police1. That organization is a part of the nation’s leading content, policy, and training platform for public safety. Their job isn’t to kiss babies and raise money; their job is to tell the truth when it comes to how guns work in the real world.

As much as the left would have you believe these devices are only used for Hollywood hitman-style murders, the truth is that the greatest use of silencers is for sporting professionals (pdf). Many shooting pros build private ranges in their basements and use silencers out of respect for their neighbors—literally the opposite of committing a crime.

Second to sporting, suppressors are used with small-caliber subsonic ammunition to rid local areas of disease-carrying vermin, like rats (pdf). Stopping disease from a distance is a good thing.

Fortunately, not all politicians believe big-action Hollywood movies are documentaries. Rep. Bob Good, from Virginia, looked to protect Americans from the suppressor-grab introduced by Menendez and Watson-Coleman. Good’s 2021 legislation sought a complete deregulation of gun suppressors at the federal level and it preempts state laws that would regulate, tax, or prohibit the possession of these devices.

“The Second Amendment is the guarantor or protector of all other rights,” Good told Breitbart News. “If our Second Amendment right is not safe, no rights are safe. Democrats continue to fear-monger and spread misinformation as a justification to undermine our constitutional rights. I’m pleased to introduce legislation that will remove regulatory burdens from purchasing accessories that protect hearing and promote safety.”

There are more than 60,000 legal federal gun-suppressor permits throughout the United States. If suppressors are so dangerous and used only as “tools of murder” then one would expect there to be a plethora of federal prosecutions for crimes committed with a firearm fitted with a suppressor. In reality, such federal prosecutions are rare occurrences (pdf), and the vast majority of those are not because a crime was committed but rather because someone hadn’t properly registered the suppressor. In other words, Menendez was flat-out lying about how they’re used.

It’s ridiculous to use Hollywood and fear to limit a person’s firearm use for competition, sport shooting, hunting, self-defense, teaching children about being responsible gun owners, or for any other constitutionally protected purpose. Don’t be fooled—bills like this do nothing to stop a criminal. They only serve to hurt your ability to use your firearm in a responsible manner.

A suppressor is not a firearm and is incapable of discharging any projectile, yet it’s regulated in the same manner as a machine gun. A firearms suppressor is a simple accessory, like a scope, holster, or any of the hundreds of other firearms accessories available, and ought to be available for purchase over the counter like any other lawful product.

Maybe President Joe Biden’s new Ministry of Truth should look at the Menendez and Watson-Coleman bill as their first order of business when rooting out misinformation. Somehow, I doubt they will.

Don’t Surrender To Do-Somethingism On Guns

Law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions.

Before we even knew how the killer of 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, had obtained his guns, Chris Murphy was engaging in his customary performative emotionalism on the Senate floor, literally begging Republicans to “compromise.”

Compromise on what exactly? Murphy has never once offered a single proposal that would have deterred any of these mass shooters. Literally minutes after his routine, Murphy was asked about the obvious mental illness prevalent among most of these shooters. “Spare me the bullsh-t about mental illness,” the Connecticut senator responded, “ripping” the GOP. “We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world.” That’s how serious he is about compromise.

Whether America is more prone to mental illness or not, these incidents are almost exclusively perpetrated by young men who have exhibited serious anti-social behavior. All of them break a slew of existing laws. All of them have either obtained guns illegally, or legally before having any criminal record. In many, if not most, cases, the shooter is already on the cops’ radar because he has threatened others or written insane, violent manifestos. In a study of mass shootings from 2008 to 2017, the Secret Service found that “100 percent of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors, and in 77 percent of shootings, at least one person – most often a peer – knew about their plan.”

Rather than focusing on these tangible entry points for potentially useful legislation, instead of proposing ideas on better identifying shooters before they act, instead of thinking about how schools could be structurally safer, instead of debating the efficacy of putting more cops in schools — and none of these are panaceas, mind you — Senate Democrats were busy dunking on Republicans for failing to support bills that have absolutely zero to do with mass shootings.

Chuck Schumer planned to introduce H.R. 8, an expanded background check bill, and H.R. 1446, a bill that would close the alleged “Charleston Loophole” (before he realized it wouldn’t be politically expedient.) “Alleged” because Dylann Roof, who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston in 2015, got a clean background check, not because of any “loophole,” but because local prosecutors had failed to respond to the FBI’s request for information. It was a case of human error, or negligence. So maybe Democrats should be promoting a “law-enforcement-should-do-its-job” bill. Because all “universal” background checks do is stop friends and families from gifting guns. Straw purchases are already illegal, as Schumer, Pelosi, and Murphy already know. And passing expanded background checks after a school shooting is tantamount to demanding stricter drivers tests after a hit and run.

Democrats, obsessed with largely irrelevant issues like AR-15s and “universal background checks,” are largely living in the early 1990s. Joe Biden’s address to the nation consisted of a litany of hackneyed talking points he’s been regurgitating for decades now — including that transcendently stupid joke about deer in Kevlar. “As a nation, we have to ask, when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” Biden said — again.

Democrats love to hammer the strawman “gun lobby” because they don’t want to openly attack tens of millions of gun owners. The NRA, whose power has significantly diminished over the past decades, could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn’t alter gun policy one bit. Either another organization would emerge — probably a more rigid one — or gun owners and Second Amendment advocates (we’re in the midst of the largest expansion of gun ownership in American history) would continue voting for politicians who oppose restrictions aimed at peaceful gun ownership.

Meanwhile, Republicans will have to deal with a barrage of preposterous smears. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

This was indicative of the sort of demented accusation thrown around these days. One suspects liberals who take to the internet to accuse Republicans of abetting infanticide aren’t really interested in compromise. Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, who champions laws that empower people to terminate the lives of the viable unborn, I don’t know of a single Republican who supports the gunning down of elementary school children.

Indeed, law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions. Nor is there any reason for them to surrender their right to self-defense so that Chris Murphy, who, evidenced in many of his comments, is only interested in incrementally limiting gun ownership. That’s his right, of course. He should try and repeal the Second Amendment. Until then, however, Democrats interested in genuine compromise may want to offer realistic, productive, and germane ideas, rather than using another horrific tragedy to dunk on their political opponents.

What that verse? ‘A house divided cannot stand’? Well, may their house collapse on them the same way the Samson collapsed the temple of dagon on the philistines.

Gun control activist admits Dems “divided” on pushing new 2A restrictions

I wish we were talking about a true change of heart on the part of many Democratic politicians, but the reluctance to pursue new gun control legislation in the wake of the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York appears to be based far more on political calculations than any scales falling off the eyes of gun-banners in Congress.

Still, there are growing grumbles of dissatisfaction among gun control activists who say Democrats should be pushing for new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, even if the prospects of passage are slim to none.

Alex Barrio, with the Center for American Progress, says following the mass shooting in Buffalo, Senate Democrats are largely avoiding talking about new control measures. Barrio explained “Democrats are divided.”

“The House, which can act, which has acted, which wants to act on this feels this sense of futility. Because again, a handful of senators who would rather just wash their hands of the whole issue, side with the conservatives and pretend that nothing’s going to happen – pretend that they can’t do anything,” Barrio said.

Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) explained “I think people are frustrated, that again and again despite best efforts the Senate has been unwilling to just work through what universal background checks would look like.”

Senators John Hickenlooper and Mark Warner both expressed no hope of passing a universal background check bill.

“Do I think it’s going to get 60 votes? Probably not. But I do think it’s important that the American people, you, are able to judge senator by senator where you stand on responsible gun safety legislation,” Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) said.

Manchin gives Democrats a reality check on gun control

Democratic lawmakers are calling for new gun control legislation in the wake of the racially motivated massacre in Buffalo, New York, last weekend, but once again Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is standing in the way of the most fervent progressives.

President Joe Biden went to Buffalo on Tuesday and visited with the families of 10 people who were killed and three others wounded by a white supremacist gunman. In a speech, the president denounced the attack as an act of “domestic terrorism,” condemned white supremacy, and renewed calls for a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“There are certain things we can do. We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when I passed the crime bill,” Biden said, referring to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a 10-year assault weapons ban.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), also speaking in Buffalo Tuesday, vowed that Democrats would “work towards finally ridding our streets of weapons of war.”

But Manchin, speaking to reporters shortly before Biden spoke, gave his realistic assessment that in the 50-50 Senate, the only gun control legislation that has a chance of passing is a bipartisan compromise on background checks that previously failed. That bill, named for Manchin and his chief co-sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), would expand federal background check requirements to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and over the internet.

“I support the Manchin-Toomey, I’ve always done that,” Manchin told reporters, according to The Hill. “The Manchin-Toomey is the one. I think if you can’t get that one, then why try to do something just for basically voting for the sake of voting?”

While some Democrats want action on a universal background check bill that passed the House in March last year, the West Virginia moderate has previously said that bill goes too far because it would extend to private transactions, such as those between neighbors, hunting buddies, or even family. The Manchin-Toomey bill exempted those transactions.

“The best piece of legislation that we’ve ever had, that most people agreed on, was the Manchin-Toomey. We didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights privately,” Manchin said.

But if Manchin-Toomey was the bill “that most people agreed on,” that wouldn’t mean much — the bill failed in 2013, coming six votes short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster at a time when a stronger Democratic majority held the Senate. Only two Republicans voted for it, Toomey and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

It is far more unlikely that 10 Republicans would cross the aisle to vote for any sort of gun control bill this year, especially before the midterm elections in November.

Gun control groups issue new (and impotent) demands to D.C. Democrats

A day after the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate publicly stated that he doesn’t see a reason to hold a vote on any gun control proposals because they’re doomed to failure, a coalition of 38 gun control organizations (who knew there were that many?) is demanding that Congress not only vote on, but approve Joe Biden’s gun ban and more.

The gun control activists laid out three demands for the Democratic-controlled Congress, none of which are likely to happen. First, the gun control lobby wants the House to approve spending $750-million on “evidence led Community Violence Initiatives”, which is on top of the roughly $2-billion that was approved in Biden’s “American Rescue Plan”. Just a few days ago the White House even issued a call for these groups to apply for grants because the money is there for the taking. Nancy Pelosi might be willing to go along with this demand, but I doubt there are 60 votes in the Senate.

The second demand from the gun control groups is House passage of “legislation banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines,” which is also going nowhere in Congress. Nancy Pelosi, who put a universal background check bill on the floor of the House for a vote, hasn’t pushed for a similar vote on Biden’s gun ban plan, and while that could change, any bill that would pass the House is going to die in the Senate.

The gun ban fans are also specifically calling on the Senate to “live up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s pledge to hold a Senate debate and vote on legislation expanding background checks to all gun purchases and addressing the Charleston Loophole,” though oddly they don’t say anything in their demand letter about the Senate voting on Biden’s gun ban and compensated confiscation scheme.

“Following the most recent racist act of domestic terrorism in Buffalo, New York and the increase in gun
violence across the country, we are calling on you to immediately do everything and anything in your power to live up to the promises you make to voters every election year,” the groups wrote in their letter.

The groups also asked the Biden administration to answer the calls of survivors and “establish a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in order to expedite the government’s response and issue further executive actions that will save lives.”

“With voters expressing concern about public safety and rising crime, you have a moral and political
responsibility to fight for the safer future you promise Americans on the campaign trail every election season,” the groups wrote.

The White House has resisted that particular demand for well over a year now, and new press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked again yesterday about the idea, but was decidedly non-committal in her response.

Q    Further on the issue of guns: Gun prevention groups or gun violence protection groups — prevention groups, rather — have been pressing the White House to start an office of gun violence protection.  Is that something that President Biden is considering, particularly in light of this most recent attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I would have to go back to the team and see if that is something that’s actually on the table.  I have not heard of that.  I could understand why that is being requested or asked, especially what we have been seeing these past — this past weekend.  I just don’t have anything more to share or preview or anything to —

If Jean-Pierre hasn’t heard about the idea, then that means no one in the White House is seriously talking about it, because that particular demand has been made for well over a year. My guess is she knows far more than she was willing to disclose in a press gaggle; namely that the White House has no plans to acquiesce to this particular demand from their anti-gun allies.

I’ll confess that I’m a little surprised that Biden hasn’t thrown the gun control lobby this particular bone to appease them, but whatever internal politics are in play seem to have kept that option off the table. Still, with Congress a dead-end for their anti-gun agenda at the moment (and likely for the next two years as well, begging the White House to help make them relevant is the best option the gun control lobby has left.

Missouri: Self-Defense Bill Eligible for Senate Floor

Yesterday,[Monday] the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and Fiscal Oversight voted to advance House Bill 1462, to reduce areas where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless. It is now eligible for debate on the Senate floor. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT HB 1462.

House Bill 1462 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Again, please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT HB 1462.

Politics vs. Reality: Iron Sharpening Iron ~ or Not

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

Continue reading “”

Donald Trump Jr. forms gun rights group

Donald Trump Jr. was the pro-gun voice in his father’s White House. While the president often spoke pro-gun words, there were many who said it was his son who gave them to him.

I’m glad there was someone there who could give the elder Trump some guidance on that sort of thing.

Now, though, it seems the younger Trump has decided to take his pro-gun work to a different level.

Donald Trump Jr. is launching a new gun rights group that he says will be a vehicle for fighting against Democratic gun control efforts.

Fox News Digital has learned that Trump Jr. will be launching the Second Amendment Task Force and will serve as the chairman of the group as it works to protect Americans’ right to bear arms.

“The Second Amendment is the whole ballgame; it’s the freedom that protects all of our other freedoms. Unfortunately the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress are hellbent on eroding our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, whether it’s nominating radical gun-grabbers to senior positions in the executive branch or pushing anti-gun legislation,” Trump Jr. told Fox News Digital. “The Second Amendment Task Force is entirely devoted to ensuring the Left is never successful in disarming American citizens.”

The Second Amendment Task Force is the first advocacy group that Trump has launched and been directly involved with. The group plans to make a push in the upcoming midterm elections this year, especially in the voter registration sphere.

OK. Um…why a new group?

Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with the mission in and of itself. Voter registration isn’t a bad thing, though I suspect gun owners are far more likely to be registered to vote than the general public.

No, my question is more about why form a completely different gun rights organization when there are already a number in existence. If you’re not a fan of the NRA, then there are Gun Owners of America, Firearm Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and a number of others.

I can’t imagine many who wouldn’t want Donald Trump Jr. on their board of directors and would be more than willing to listen to him regarding areas he believes the Second Amendment community is underserving.

So, again, why?

My concern is that there’s only so much support for any cause. A new organization will dilute the pool and potentially provide fewer resources for everyone. If Trump thinks someone isn’t doing what they should and he wants to push them out of the picture, then so be it. That’s the beauty of the free market and all that.

Yet the problem is that we don’t know that. We don’t know why he’s forming a gun-rights group right now, and I’m curious as to the answer.

Will I lose sleep over it? Probably not. However, I’ll also be paying attention to what they do going forward to see just how they’re fitting into the Second Amendment ecosystem. Who knows, maybe he’ll attract new voices to Second Amendment activism and increase the pool of resources for everyone. If so, that’ll be a huge win.

It should be interesting to see how everything unfolds.

California Gun-Grabbers Are Scapegoating Lawful Gun Owners (Again)

Continue reading “”