No Compromise Alliance of GOA Sends A Letter To The Senate

On Friday, a group of Gun Owners of America (GOA) industry partners known as the No Compromise Alliance sent a letter to Congress opposing the proposed so-called “assault weapons” ban (H.R. 1808) and the repeal of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 2814).

The coalition consists of Fort Scott Munitions, Classic Firearms, Rifle Dynamics, Alpha Omega Kydex Holster, T.Rex Arms, Kahr Firearms Group, Wolfpack Armory, Freedom Ordnance MFG, and Foxtrot Mike Products. The letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Minority Whip John Thun (R-SD).

The letter urges the Senate to oppose two bills currently expected to pass the U.S. House of Representatives and head to the Senate. The first bill is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 (H.R. 1808). The proposed law will ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms for mostly cosmetic features. The ban targets the popular AR-15, known as the modern American musket, and AK pattern guns that Rifle Dynamics produces. It would also limit magazine size to ten rounds. The bill refers to any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds as “high compacity.” One of the most concerning parts of the anti-gun House bill would ban guns that have a fully automatic version. Since Glock makes the automatic Glock 18, the Glock 17, the most popular handgun in the world, could be banned by the new proposed “assault weapons” ban.

The second bill is the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act of 2022 (H.R. 2814). That bill would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This proposed law would allow anyone to sue firearms manufacturers for any reason. Congress passed the PLCAA to protect the firearms industry from litigation from anti-gun groups trying to bankrupt the gun industry.

Continue reading “”

Man fatally shot while trying to break into York County home

YORK COUNTY, Va. (WAVY) — The York Poquoson Sheriff’s Office says a homeowner fatally shot a man who tried to kick down the door to a home in York County on Monday.

The call for the shooting came in just after 5 p.m. in the 300 block of Corvette Drive. The neighborhood is near Queens Lake Middle School.

“This is very abnormal for this neighborhood,” said York Poquoson Sheriff’s Major Ron Montgomery. “It’s a quiet neighborhood.”

In an update Tuesday, the sheriff’s office says the man, identified as 20-year-old Antonio Beltran Flores Perez, had jumped a gate and tried to forcibly enter the home.

“The family had spotted the individual coming out of the woods behind the home and the family had gone inside the home and this person came onto the deck and began kicking the door,” said Major Ron Montgomery.

The homeowner said he and his family were outside at the time and went inside and locked the door. Perez then tried to kick the door, the sheriff’s office says.

Major Montgomery says Perez, who tried to break into the home, didn’t have a weapon, but tried multiple times to get inside. They say Perez’s body was found on the back deck. Major Montgomery says the homeowner’s concern was trying to protect his family.

“That was his big concern,” said Major Montgomery. “The door had been locked and when he started kicking the door to make entry into the house, that’s when the homeowner shot the individual.”

Major Montgomery says even though York County has a fairly low crime rate, that doesn’t mean people living there are immune to these types of crimes.

“If you have someone who’s trespassing on your property that you’re concerned about, I would encourage you to dial 911 immediately,” said Major Montgomery. “Nationally, we are seeing a lot more handgun violence and a lot more of these situations where burglaries or larcenies are occurring, so I think nationally that is a trend and what we’ve learned here in York County, although we have a very low crime rate, that doesn’t mean we are going to be immune from these types of crimes.”

Right now, investigators say no one has been charged in this case.

 

Bloomberg gathers anti-gun mayors to plan post-Bruen moves

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made it his life’s mission to essentially erode the Second Amendment to the point that it means nothing.

Standing in his way, however, is that whole pesky “constitutionality” thing.

The Bruen decision was undoubtedly a major setback for the former mayor and his anti-gun allies. Now, as NSSF’s Larry Keane notes, it seems they’re getting together to plan their next step in attacking our rights.

Democratic mayors from the largest cities aren’t going to stand idly by and allow the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm Americans’ Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is the gun control kitchen cabinet of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, ever on his quest to deny God-given rights to law-abiding Americans even while he enjoys them. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, Bloomberg summoned his coterie to New York City.

Reporting for Duty

The cattle call included a who’s-who of gun control mayors. Many have defunded their police departments, restricted gun rights and some have already been rebuffed by courts for misguided local policies.

Baltimore Democratic Mayor Brandon Scott joined the meeting, as did St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones, Little Rock, Ark., Mayor Frank Scott and Buffalo, N.Y.,  Mayor Byron Brown. Kansas City’s Mayor Quinton Lucas attended too – he was just named “Gun Sense Lawmaker of the Year” by Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety for his participation in a scheme by mayors to sue gun manufacturers.

Their focus seems to be to use “public nuisance” lawsuits to try and punish gun manufacturers for the actions of third parties.

Likely emboldened by the Remington lawsuit’s results, we’re going to see a lot more such lawsuits, but what they’re forgetting is that this wasn’t Remington who settled. This was an insurance company with no stake in the Second Amendment.

A lot of gun companies will fight such lawsuits and challenge these efforts right to the Supreme Court.

Do Bloomberg and company like their chances there?

If so, they’re more masochistic than I gave them credit for.

But until the Court smacks them down, they can do a lot of damage to the firearm industry. Pro-gun legislatures may want to look at how they may be able to curtail such actions by the anti-Second Amendment mayors marching to Bloomberg’s tune. Otherwise, the damage could become incalculable over the long term.

See, the purpose of the lawsuits isn’t to get restitution for some wrong. It’s extortion. The Bloomberg Bunch are basically saying, “You do things our way or we sue you into oblivion.”

After all, Michael Bloomberg has deep pockets, no heirs to worry about, so he can throw his billions at little more than just this. That’s something most gun manufacturers can’t afford to deal with.

And that’s the point.

They’re threatening these companies to either comply or die. If I did that to you, it’s basically extortion and I’d be thrown in prison for it, as I should be.

Yet Bloomberg’s efforts are considered perfectly legal.

Which means we need to dig in and fight back. After all, if Bloomberg gets his way in this, there won’t be any guns to buy, which essentially renders the Second Amendment irrelevant.

Are permits to purchase the next anti-gun domino to fall?

“May issue” concealed carry laws are out, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, but they’re not the laws that are likely to be implicated by the Court’s opinion. We’ve already seen SCOTUS vacate lower court decisions upholding bans on so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines, and Bruen has been referenced in new challenges to the “sensitive places” and “good moral character” or “suitability” concealed carry restrictions slapped on the books in blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey in recent weeks as well.

The pro-gun control website The Trace reports that anti-gun activists are also worried that another subjective and arbitrary gun control law on the books in a handful of states is also in danger thanks to the Bruen decision: permits to purchase a firearm.

Of the 14 states that have such a policy, three — Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — are may-issue, giving authorities the discretion to deny applicants a license in the interest of public safety, again based on criteria beyond basic requirements. Such criteria includes arrests that don’t result in convictions and other documented instances of violent behavior, including domestic violence. Now that the court has struck down may-issue for concealed carry, these last vestiges of the policy may be ripe for a court challenge as well, legal experts say.

“I wouldn’t be surprised, given the similarity,” said Alexander McCourt, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. In many permit-to-purchase states, the handgun purchasing permit and concealed carry permit processes are one and the same, involving some of the same paperwork and evaluated by the same issuing authority, McCourt said. Several permit-to-purchase states also require handgun safety training, fingerprints, photographs, proof of residence, and waiting periods to own or buy a gun, just as they do for concealed carry permits. “There’s just a lot of parallels,” he said.

Issuing authorities in some of the permit-to-purchase states without may-issue still wield the discretion to deny permits, in the form of suitability and character requirements. In North Carolina, where purchase permits are required for handguns only, some sheriffs require applicants to be of “good moral character.” It’s unclear exactly how issuing authorities determine this, but it’s not “arbitrary discretion,” McCourt said. “They have to at least articulate a reason that could then be appealed and challenged.” McCourt expects suitability and character requirements to be challenged in court, as well.

As well they should. As The Trace acknowledges (somewhat surprisingly, I have to say), the only real historical analogues to the current permit to purchase laws are some 19th Century statutes that were put in place specifically to prevent black Americans from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Public Nuisance

The World Economic Forum says that the average car is “only being used 4% of the time” so most people shouldn’t be permitted to own a car. Doing the math, this means that the average person drives their car an hour a day.

Most people have a computer and a cell phone, even though they are given one by their employer. This increases your carbon footprint, they say.

If people only replace their phone every five years instead of every three, they would reduce their carbon footprint, they say.

So the World Economic Forum thinks that we, the peasants, should not own cars. We shouldn’t own phones or computers. No, if we need one, it will be issued to us. Once every five years.

Who determines what you need? Why they do, of course. Not you.

This is nothing more than Soviet style communism.

Andrew Wilkow has coined a phrase called the “everyman king.” It is the idea that the American dream turns every property owner into royalty. You own land, a home, and most of the same luxuries owned by the elites. This means that the everyman has the same access to the same luxuries that the elites have. This cannot be permitted to stand. What good is it being an elite, if any member of the public can get the same stuff that you can?

This is the essence of communism- it is sold to the public as a plan to make everyone equal, but it of course does nothing of the sort, and never has. All communism is good at doing is making those in charge of the communist party into elites who have access to those luxuries that have been denied the everyman.

Leftist Attacks on Law and Order are Precipitating a Shift in Favor of the Right to Self-Defense

On the morning of July 19, news broke that Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg dropped a second-degree murder charge against 61-year-old, bodega clerk, Jose Alba. Earlier in the month, Alba had been arrested in Manhattan and charged with murder after defending himself from 35-year-old Austin Simon’s attack.

Alba’s saga is just one of many instances sending the same message. It is one that Soros-backed prosecutors and the left have been pushing for years: you do not have the right to defend yourself, ever.

Video surveillance would show Simon’s girlfriend berating Alba after her government issued food-stamp debit card was declined. Only moments later, Simon entered the store, walked behind the counter and shoved Alba against the wall. Simon then stood over Alba and blocked his exit.

When Alba attempted to get up, Simon grabbed him by the neck. That’s when Alba reached for a knife and stabbed Simon during the brawl that ensued. Simon died.

Alba’s bail was originally set at $250K, an outlandish number considering DA Bragg is an advocate for ending the cash bail system. In a move paralleling Bragg’s distaste for self-defense, ‘GoFundMe’ removed Alba’s page after people began donating to him.

After his arrest, it was revealed that Simon’s girlfriend pulled out her own knife and reportedly stabbed Alba during the brawl. At the time officers chose not to arrest her explaining that she was simply defending her boyfriend.

So, in the city of Manhattan you encourage your boyfriend to assault the man who refuses to let you steal from him and you have the legal license to stab him when he fights back.

Thankfully, the charges were dropped. But why were they filed to begin with? And why hasn’t the DA instructed his deputies to avoid charging victims and instead stay focused on the myriad number of violent criminals?

Alba’s mistreatment is the natural outworking of the Soros-backed prosecutors’ efforts to protect the criminal at all costs.

Continue reading “”

Threaten? That would be the least of a bunglars worries with me.

83 Percent: OK to Threaten Intruder With Gun

If someone is breaking into your home or business, 83% of voters say that it is appropriate to protect yourself by threatening him with a gun. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 8% think it is not appropriate, and 9% are not sure.

The survey also found that 79% of voters believe that self-defense is a legitimate purpose for owning a gun, 69% say that hunting is, and 26% say protection against the government. Just 9% say there is no legitimate purpose for owning a gun.

Methodology
The survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on July 12-13, 2022. Fieldwork for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. Certain quotas were applied, and the sample was lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage, and political party to reasonably reflect the nation’s population of registered voters. Other variables were reviewed to ensure that the final sample is representative of that population.

Google hands over home security camera footage to police without a warrant

Google and Amazon are letting the police access data from smart home cameras without a warrant, if they are told this footage is needed because of an “emergency.”

Meanwhile others who sell similar devices and services, like Arlo, Apple, Wyze, Eufy, claim their policy is the opposite, CNET writes.

It was first reported that Amazon was cooperating with law enforcement in this way, and it has now emerged that Google is treating its customers’ privacy the same way.

In the US, Amazon and Google say that “in most cases” the police have to provide some kind of legal justification to access video from their devices installed in people’s homes, be it a warrant or subpoena. Any other policy, such as making exceptions like the “emergencies” one, is not something a company can be forced to do, reports say, suggesting that Amazon and Google have chosen to adopt such an approach to users’ privacy.

Nevertheless, the two tech giants are proceeding with this policy; Amazon has revealed that it turned over data 11 times when the police submitted “emergency requests,” while Google does not provide any details in its transparency report.

The company has an information request policy that addresses this scenario, to say that if it “reasonably believes” giving footage to the authorities who have no warrant to obtain it will prevent death or serious physical harm, it “may” do so.

Some examples given of when “reasonable belief” comes into play while making these decisions are bomb threats, school shootings, kidnappings, suicides, etc.

“We still consider these requests in light of applicable laws and our policies,” Google promises.

And when Google decides to give law enforcement their data because the company believes there is an emergency, users may never learn that this happened. According to a Nest spokesman quoted by CNET, they do “try” to notify users, though.

Amazon, on the other hand, didn’t even bother to disclose, when asked by both CNET and The Verge, whether or not, and in what circumstances, it lets users know that footage from smart cameras has been shared.

This is just the latest controversy plaguing the “smart home surveillance” market, with others mostly related to security issues.

China tried to obtain internal info and build a network of informants inside the Federal Reserve, says a new GOP Senate report.

The Chinese government tried to obtain sensitive internal information and build a network of influence and informants inside the Federal Reserve, according to a new report released Tuesday by Republican staff members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The report from the committee staff of Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, the ranking member, did not conclude whether the attempts, which included the detention of a Federal Reserve employee, were successful.

Since at least 2013, the report found, China has targeted the Federal Reserve System and sought to recruit U.S.-based economists to share information in exchange for money and other benefits. Thirteen Federal Reserve employees working across eight of the Fed’s 12 locations were identified as the “P-Network” by a Federal Reserve analysis that deemed them to be of potential concern, according to the report.

Continue reading “”

Judge Napolitano’s basic sentiment is correct, he just gets some facts wrong.

Your Gun Is None of the Government’s Business

No sooner had the Supreme Court released its decision last month recognizing the personal right to carry a handgun outside the home than the big-government politicians began to resist the court’s holding. None was more anti-Constitution than New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who told the court that “New York is ready for you.”

I understand that politicians often say and do things that they inwardly know are unconstitutional or unlawful in order to please their political bases, but vaguely threatening the Supreme Court over a fundamental liberty is an offense to the Constitution.

Here is the backstory.

Continue reading “”

The folly of an ‘assault weapons’ ban

Congress is desperately trying to resurrect a carcass of the 1990s. Democrats want to bring back their so-called assault weapons ban but pack it with more added restrictions this go-around. In fact, U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop, R-9th District, had a revealing exchange with New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, where the latter admitted that the point of the bill is to ban a host of weapons in everyday use today.

The bill, expected to receive a floor vote in August, is about disarming Americans, classifying them more as serfs and not citizens. Regardless of some good intentions for public safety, it’s yet another piece of gun legislation that gives criminals and the government the upper hand over law-abiding citizens.

Even U.S. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, who gleefully spearheaded the most recent gun control compromise, denounced the bill. “So-called ‘assault rifles’ are semiautomatic firearms,” wrote Cornyn. “Firing mechanism essentially the same as a semiautomatic pistol and shotgun. They should be honest: Democrats want to disarm law-abiding citizens while doing little about crime and undermining the police.” Cornyn’s right. Simply banning weapons based primarily on aesthetic characteristics serves no useful purpose except to take guns away from the citizenry.

The 1994 ‘assault weapons’ promised a reduction in gun violence and crime. Yet, tough sentencing laws and pro-active policing brought down the crime rate. A 2004 U.S. Department of Justice report noted that renewing the ‘assault weapons’ ban makes little sense. According to the report, the magazine capacity limits and banning certain classes of semiautomatic weapons “is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement” to impact gun violence. The ban expired soon after the Department of Justice findings.

“HR 1808 represents the latest over-reach by congressional Democrats seeking to incrementally end the private ownership of firearms,” declares Grass Roots North Carolina President Paul Valone. “By using a draconian ‘one feature’ test rather than the ‘two feature’ test of the 1994 ban on semiautomatic firearms, it would ban something as simple as a Ruger .22 pistol if it happened to have a threaded barrel, which is commonly used for attaching a muzzle brake or other device. Equally egregious is its ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, severely limiting the ability of lawful citizens to use firearms for self-defense precisely when Democrat policies are causing an explosion of urban homicide.”

The ‘one feature’ test simply means that if a particular firearm has a single feature like a barrel shroud or telescoping stocks, it will fall under the ban. Valone and others believe that even if passed into law, the Supreme Court will probably strike it down as unconstitutional, particularly given the recent Bruen decision.

Still, the Constitution continues to prove to be meaningless in the minds of the aggressive gun-grabbing crowd. President Biden himself mindlessly reads from the teleprompter, “You can’t be on the side of the police” if you oppose this bill. Yet, a new Quinnipiac Poll, even with relentless media cheerleading for gun control, reveals that 49% of Americans support an ‘assault weapons’ ban. The bill has morphed into a behemoth for banning tens of millions of guns that already exist for the sake of rewarding anti-Second Amendment donors who lavishly spend to elect Democrats intent on seizing firearms.

It’s time to focus less on running afoul of inherent rights and banning legal weapons and instead look to practical solutions to crime and gun violence. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns by criminals who already possess them illegally. Cities with the highest crime rates are usually the hardest places to buy guns in America. We should reject further proposals that narrowly focus on criminalizing law-abiding citizens for the illusion of safety.

The Americans legally accessing firearms remind us that the American Founders got it right the first time with our Second Amendment. People want to protect themselves from criminals and even the government if it becomes tyrannical. This protection was included in our Bill of Rights for the simple reason that it’s a right that predates American constitutional theory itself.

From all the breaks, up to that point, it’s clearly apparent he’s having problems just keeping on teleprompter. My most probable guess is, he finally ran out of steam from all the takes, and had to get another shot of whatever cocktail of stimulants he gets loaded up with so he could finish. And with all those edits, there’s no telling how long it takes to get him back on his feet if they could at all, for each take they then splice together.

Democrats shocked… Shocked! To learn that gun companies charge money for firearms

Today the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held the first in a series of hearings designed to support efforts to enact new gun control laws. Invited to testify at the hearing were the CEOs of a number of prominent firearms manufacturing companies, including Daniel Defense, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer and others.

If you find yourself wondering what these CEOs have to do with this ongoing process, you’re not alone, but most of them agreed to show up. Ahead of the hearing, the committee released a lengthy statement penned by Democratic Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney. In it, she indicated that they would be releasing their findings from an “investigation” into the sales reports of the various companies as if it was really all that difficult to find their sales records.

Maloney announced what she clearly seemed to think was a shocking statistic. The combined companies racked up more than one billion dollars in sales of certain styles of semiautomatic long rifles that Democrats refer to as “assault weapons.” Oh, and they advertise their products. You’re shocked, I know. Here are a couple of excerpts from Maloney’s letter.

“How much are the lives of America’s children, teachers, parents, and families worth to gun manufacturers? My Committee’s investigation has revealed that the country’s major gun manufacturers have collected more than $1 billion in revenue from selling military-style assault weapons to civilians.

These companies are selling the weapon of choice for mass murderers who terrorize young children at school, hunt down worshippers at churches and synagogues, and slaughter families on the Fourth of July. In short, the gun industry is profiting off the blood of innocent Americans.

“My Committee has found that the business practices of these gun manufacturers are deeply disturbing, exploitative, and reckless. These companies use aggressive marketing tactics to target young people—especially young men—and some even evoke symbols of white supremacy. Yet we found that none of these companies bothers to keep track of the death and destruction caused by their products.

Maloney is obviously just trying to gin up anger against the firearms industry in hopes of forcing a vote on more gun control legislation. But let’s take a moment and look at the three major complaints she raises in the letter. One can only hope that she doesn’t come across this article and read it because I would hate to see her become even more traumatized than she clearly already is.

First, she notes that the various firearms companies have “collected” more than one billion dollars selling these rifles. (I love the use of the word “collected” to create some sort of sinister connotation.) To her credit, Maloney is absolutely correct. These companies do charge money for their products. The reason they “collect” so much for these various “Bushmaster” style rifles is that they are some of the most popular models in the country. But while the mass shootings draw a lot of media attention, it’s also worthwhile to point out to the congresswoman that the FBI has told us year after year after year that long rifles of any type are the least common type of firearms used in the commission of crimes, including murder. More people are killed on average every year by murderers using blunt objects, knives, or even their bare hands. Moving on.

She complains about the advertising themes that the firearms manufacturers employ when trying to boost sales. Again, she is correct. These companies produce advertisements to attract customers. In not one single ad we’ve ever seen have any of them suggested that these products should be used to kill human beings, though it’s clear that such a thing might happen if you are forced to defend yourself and/or your family from a home intruder. They are most commonly used for hunting or target shooting. This is another nonsensical “accusation.”

Her final complaint is that none of the gun companies are “bothering” to keep track of the number of people killed by people using these products. Really? How shocking. You’re telling us that civilian manufacturers of firearms are not in the business of collecting crime data from law enforcement agencies? Of course, if they did “bother” to do that, assuming they could legally extract the information from law enforcement agencies all around the country, they would discover that the number is minuscule compared to deaths caused by handguns, knives, and baseball bats, as I mentioned above. Perhaps they should start including that data in their advertising.

It’s kind of admirable that these CEOs were willing to travel to Washington and sit through all of this nonsense with a straight face. The Democrats in Congress are once again putting on yet another circus to try to distract the country from the disastrous state of the country at the moment and the failures of their own policies. But it’s a midterm election year so we probably should have expected this.

When the congresscritterz return from their august vacay, they’ll be at the start of campaign season where their interests will be in not doing controversial things that might have a negative effect on their re-election campaigns. Don’t hold your breath, but I think Peelousy and her demoncrap lackeys have missed the window to get this to a vote.

House Democrats give up on passing “assault weapons” ban… at least for now

In an embarrassing defeat for the gun control lobby, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pulled the plug on the attempt to pass an “assault weapons” ban ahead of the August recess after failing to come up with the necessary votes, though POLITICO reports Democrats could try to revive the bill once lawmakers return after Labor Day.

According to the POLITICO report infighting between the Democrats’ progressive and “moderate” caucus led to the bill being pulled; not necessarily because of the gun ban itself, but because of progressives’ balking at a bill that would have increased funding for law enforcement.

Pelosi confirmed those plans to reporters Wednesday, acknowledging that the caucus has always planned to return when, or if, the Senate is able to complete work on a sweeping prescription drug and health care funding package: “The recognition that we have to come back … has made our plans a little bit different.”

The package of bills was intended to satisfy moderates — with measures to invest in local policing — as well as progressives, with the first vote to ban semi-automatic weapons since 1994. But other factions in the caucus, including the CBC, said they were skeptical of the timing of the policing legislation with only months remaining until the midterms. Progressives, too, demanded more safeguards placed on the grants to law enforcement organizations.

“We have a broad-based caucus that has multiple interests,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said as he left a closed-door meeting Wednesday morning. “The overwhelming majority want to make sure that people understand we want safe communities.”

Instead, the House will pivot its attention to a “big cat” public safety bill, a “Tiger King”-inspired bill from activist Carole Baskin, along with other noncontroversial legislation. Those will be the last votes for at least a week, as the House heads on its August recess and awaits Senate action on the drug pricing and health care bill.

Pelosi was hoping that “moderates” would support the gun ban bill while the progressive wing would bite their tongue and vote for the bill that would give more money to local law enforcement, but instead it sounds like the progressives weren’t willing to go along, which led to at least even more moderates balking at voting to ban the most commonly-sold rifles in the country. What remains unclear, for the moment anyway, is whether Democrats ever had the votes for their gun ban. I’m not convinced that’s the case even though Democrats are spinning the sidelining of the bill as an intra-party disagreement over policing.

Moderate Democrats have pushed for months for floor votes to show their commitment to supporting local police, after a scourge of GOP attack ads last cycle portrayed their party as anti-cop and soft on crime. Those attacks, according to Democrats’ own campaign arm, were “alarmingly potent” in key swing districts, and many battleground members believe it cost the party seats in the last election — which narrowed their House majority as they expected to expand it.

As the package of bills moved closer to the floor, however, progressives and Black Democrats raised alarm bells that the party shouldn’t be supporting more cash and support for policing programs without any kind of new accountability standards. The debate became highly nuanced: A bipartisan bill to increase the hiring and pay of police officers, particularly in local areas, became a bigger conversation about the role of policing.

“The debate is not about the function of policing. It’s about the definition of policing. And I think that that’s been the hard part,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a senior progressive.

I’m sure that there are a number of Democrats in purple districts who are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to cast a vote on criminalizing the sale and purchase of most semi-automatic rifles as well as many models of shotguns and handguns, and I would be surprised if Nancy Pelosi really does decide to revisit the issue after Democrats return to D.C. after their August recess. It’s possible, of course, but if that’s going to happen she’s gonna have to convince the sizable number of progressives in the House to vote to increase funding for police and persuade the much smaller number of moderates to cast a high profile vote in favor of a sweeping gun ban just weeks before Americans start casting their votes in the midterms. If Pelosi couldn’t get that done in late July, I don’t see how it’s going to be any easier even closer to Election Day.