Report: DHS Sec. Accused of Leaking Trump’s ICE Raid Now Tied to Obama, Hillary

H/T Western Journal.

It is time for President Trump to fire the acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan.

Leaks and internal struggles have plagued the Trump administration since day one, and now it looks like yet another die-hard Democrat supporter may have been pulling strings in Washington to undermine the president.

On Saturday, the Washington Examiner reported that a key Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation intended to round up certain illegal aliens was called off after an insider allegedly passed confidential details of the operation to the media.

Two days before the operation was set to begin, outlets including The Washington Post announced it to the world, effectively eliminating any element of surprise.

“President Trump has directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to conduct a mass roundup of migrant families that have received deportation orders, an operation that is likely to begin with predawn raids in major U.S. cities on Sunday,” The Post reported.

But that “roundup” never happened, and the reason may be a political coup. According to homeland security reporter and border expert Anna Giaritelli, fingers now point to a longtime Democrat ally as the “leaker” who tipped off the media and the law breakers.

“This week’s big leak about a major Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation was orchestrated by acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan in an effort to sabotage the raids before they were scheduled to take place, according to three current and two former senior administration officials,” Giaritelli wrote in the Examiner.

“[A]ll five officials who spoke with the Washington Examiner confirmed McAleenan’s decision to go rogue and stymie the operation was what prompted the White House to call off the 10-city operation,” the report continued.

It would make sense if McAleenan was the one who threw a wrench into the ICE mission. Government sources interviewed by Giaritelli allegedly said that the secretary had pushed back against the raids for months.

And McAleenan traveled to the border last week with Washington Post journalist Nick Miroff — the same source which published details of the planned raid.

If there was any question about McAleenan’s possible motivations, a follow-up story from the Examiner should clear it up.

Records show that the official suspected by insiders to be the leaker was a loyal backer of former President Barack Obama, while his wife was clearly a Hillary Clinton supporter.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Anna Giaritelli


Here are some of the FEC records that show donations acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan & his wife made to Obama in 08, Obama in 12, Clinton in 16. McAleenan is accused of leaking ICE raids to sabotage them because he opposes Trump’s border strategy. 

127 people are talking about this

“Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who was accused of sabotaging the Trump administration’s deportation operation because of a personal opposition to the plan, has given for years solely to Democratic causes,” wrote Giaritelli in the Examiner, citing federal records.

“He made 11 contributions from $100 to $600 totaling $3,000 to then-Sen. Barack Obama between November 2007 and November 2008,” the newspaper continued. “[H]is wife made three donations totaling $505 to Hillary for America in July 2016.

Now, donating to one candidate or another may not be a problem by itself, but it does raise red flags when combined with the growing number of Washington voices who believe McAleenan let his personal politics get in the way of his duty.

“He has proven his political leanings in his actions, including his campaign contributions,” Brandon Judd wrote in a scathing Fox News Op-Ed piece. Judd heads the National Border Patrol Council, essentially a union of 16,000 Border Patrol agents. “By definition, Kevin McAleenan should be considered anti-Trump,” he continued.

Judd believes that if McAleenan did leak ICE plans to the media, it was a serious dereliction of duty.

“McAleenan was inexcusably willing to put the public at risk and law enforcement officers in harm’s way in order to further his own agenda, an agenda which has not aligned with that of President Trump from the day he was appointed to his previous position as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” the NBPC president wrote.

He’s right. Having personal views about a president is fine, but letting those views get in the way of an official’s job and the proper execution of America’s laws is unacceptable. It looks like the D.C. “swamp” still hasn’t been drained, and it’s time to start asking some hard questions.


Irrational Hoplophobia from NBC12 in Virginia


In the past you could trust the drive-by media would present both sides of the gun control argument.

Now they are 100% Hoplophobic.

Click on image to enlarge

By Dean Weingarten. June 24th, 2019
Article Source

When people want to believe something, they tend to fit the data to their pre-conceived ideas. This is known in scientific circles as confirmation bias. Others may call it rationalization.

It is on full display in an article written by Katie O’Conner in the Virgina Mercury. The article is piece promoting more restrictive gun laws in Virginia, in advance of the special session called by Democrat Governor Ralph Northam. The article is premised on false assumptions and the irrational attribution of volition to inanimate objects. From

As state lawmakers prepare to reassemble in Richmond for a special session on gun control after the Virginia Beach shooting, this statistic will likely be repeated often: In Virginia, more than 1,000 people die due to gun violence every year.

That equates to almost three people every day. Guns take more lives than car crashes.

And nearly two-thirds of those gun-related deaths in Virginia are suicides.

It is a short article that illustrates the illogic of hoplophobes.

First, this sentence:

In Virginia, more than 1,000 people die due to gun violence every year.

It sounds like a statement of fact. It isn’t. A statement of fact would be: Guns are involved in more than 1,000 deaths in Virginia every year. The difference is in the causal attribution.

The causal attribution “due to gun violence” makes it appear that if there were no guns, 1,000 people would not have died.

The underlying assumption is “no guns, no gun deaths”. The statement is false logic. No gun deaths does not mean no deaths. There is little reason to believe a decrease in “gun deaths” means a decrease in deaths.

Here is a parallel statement that makes the irrationality clear. “No hospitals, no hospital deaths”.

A great many people die in hospitals. If we eliminate hospitals, then we eliminate hospital deaths. But the overall death rate will rise.

The reason this illogic resonates with hoplophobes is because they have rejected firearms ownership and use. To rationalize this rejection, they convince themselves that firearms have no legitimate purpose, and firearms are useless for defense of self and others.

Notice the inflation of “gun violence” to include suicides. The percentage of suicides committed with guns in the United States has fallen from about 60% (1990-1996) to about 50% at present. During that period, the per capita number of firearms in the United States increased by about 40% (.78 to 1.3). The overall number of people who commit suicide with guns has risen, because the overall suicide rate rose so much during the Obama administration.

Those who wish for a disarmed population claim more guns are in fewer hands. They do this based on a survey that indicates a smaller percentage of households have guns. Other surveys show the percentage of households with guns to be about the same as they were 40 years ago. There are numerous other indicators that show gun ownership has been rising, including burgeoning gun sales, enormous increases in concealed carry permits, and rising percentages of minorities and women who own guns.

Part of the irrationality of hoplophobes is to transfer volition from people to guns. From the article:

Guns take more lives than car crashes.

Guns do not take lives. People with guns take lives. In the United States, and in Virginia, about 2/3 of those lives are people who take their own life. In Virginia, and in the United States, about half of suicides are committed by people with guns.

The claim of hoplophobes is, if no guns were available, the number of suicides would drop. There are several studies that show, if you work hard to make a particular suicide method less available, suicides with that method will drop. The overall suicide rate is likely to drop for a short while, until people learn of other methods and substitute those methods.

In Australia, when ownership of guns was subjected to extreme restrictions and regulations, the suicide rate with guns decreased. But suicide with other methods increased. Overall, the suicide rate was higher after the extreme gun controls than before.

It is easy to come up with plausible sounding rationalizations, even with rationalizations that fit existing data.

For example, it may be that severe gun restrictions lead men (who commit far more suicides than women in today’s society) to believe life is not worth living, as society has become too regulated and less accepting of men. Thus, promoting “gun control”, which men oppose more than women, might lead to more suicides, especially with other methods.

I am not saying the above is true, or not; I am using it as an illustration of how easy it is to create rationalizations that fit a data set.

The data shows that restricting guns has little, if any effect on overall suicide rates, similar as restrictions on other methods.

The promoters of removing suicide methods claim if enough lethal methods are removed, the suicide rate will be permanently lowered.

They may be correct. It is impossible to know. If may be fewer people would wish to live in such a highly regulated society.

It is ironic, however, that many of the same political philosophy who wish to highly restrict firearms because of the risk of suicide, simultaneously promote “assisted suicide”, where there is governmental approval of suicide.

It is not suicide they object to. It is suicide that does not have the stamp of state approval.

Overall age adjusted suicide rates peaked in the U.S.A. in 1986, dropped until 1999, then started rising again, with current levels slightly lower than in 1986.

Hoplophobes, those with an irrational fear of weapons, will not be convinced by facts or logic. But most people are not hoplophobes and have not studied the issues.

Facts and logic can be useful in educating them.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

Portland State University Students Demand The Insane, Call For Campus Police To Be Disarmed

H/T Bearing Arms.

Only college stupids on the left coast would whine about being afraid of becoming a victim of a mass shooting yet want the campus police disarmed.

I thought colleges were done with this kind of stupidity.

Let me back up a bit. It seems that some students at Portland State University believe they would be much better off if the campus police were disarmed.

Portland State University students rallied at a Thursday board meeting, calling for campus police officers to be disarmed.

“Police with guns are ticking time bomb,” said Olivia Pace, one of the students who spoke in front of the Portland State University Board of Trustees.

Students in favor of disarming campus police held signs and spoke at the board meeting. They said they believe it has taken far too long for university leadership to take action.

The most recent debate over disarming campus police started nearly a year ago when PSU officers shot and killed Jason Washington.

Washington was breaking up a fight when a gun fell out of his pocket.

He had a concealed carry license but police shot him when he tried to pick up the weapon.

“We have been saying this is dangerous, that someone will get killed, and we were right,” said one student as he testified in front of the board.

Now, what happened to Washington is a tragedy. I vaguely remember that one happening.

However, disarming an entire campus police department is hardly the answer.

I can’t help but wonder how many of the people supporting this have also talked about how they’re terrified they’re going to be gunned down in class by a mass shooter. I’m willing to bet the Venn diagram of these two groups will look like one big circle.

The thing is, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t talk about how scared you are of mass shooters and then talk about disarming the police.

You don’t get to say, “Only the police and military should have guns like these,” and then demand a law enforcement agency disarm completely. The world isn’t Burger King, and you don’t get it your way.

Campus police don’t necessarily get the high-risk calls other departments do, but they do face risks. They need to be armed to protect themselves and the public. That includes protecting the student body of PSU from a potential mass shooter.

These folks probably didn’t give a damn about Jason Washington. He was a lawful gun owner. He carried a firearm. I’m sure if he hadn’t been shot, they would look at him as a part of the problem with the world.

They just don’t like guns.

Right now, they primarily focus their attention on disarming law-abiding citizens, but what happens on campuses tends to spread out. There will be those who think the police should be disarmed next. Not just on campus, but everywhere.

Apparently, the criminals will give up their guns then or something.

When college students wonder why I don’t listen to them on guns, it’s because too many of their peers believe crap like this. Fewer guns don’t mean less crime. It means fewer people able to oppose criminals. If you start disarming police on campuses too, that’s asking for trouble.

BOMBSHELL: More Proof Found That Omar Abused Immigration Laws & Married Her Brother

H/T Flag And Cross.

There is an old adage that goes Actions speak louder than words.”

So I am waiting to see what action against Ilhan Omar(Delusional-MN)happens if anything does.

It appears to me that Ilhan Omar(Delusional-MN)should be facing tax and immigration fraud charges.

But will it happen?

Someone’s pants are on fire!!

Democrats are so fond of America and the rule of law that they have no problem abusing either one.

True love, huh?

Check out what a liberal newspaper is reporting on freshman Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN), via Star-Tribune:

Trending: BOMBSHELL: Mexico Is Sending 15,000 Troops to the U.S. Border, & It’s All Because of Trump

New investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man — possibly her own brother — to skirt immigration laws.


Since the recent findings of the campaign finance board that discovered Omar had improperly used campaign money to pay a lawyer to fix her tax filings, the Star Tribune searched public records — including available databases, the marriage and divorce filing, business licenses, university records and other documents — and could find little publicly available information about Elmi. The search of records could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.

Sent a list of questions and a request to talk to her siblings and father, Omar declined to do so. Hirsi did not reply to multiple calls, texts and e-mails. Social media posts indicate Elmi is in Africa. He did not respond to multiple e-mails.

Omar’s reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud. Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of “fake journalists on bigoted blogs.”

The “Minneapolis Star-Tribune” first broke the story about Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s potentially fraudulent tax returns.

The freshman lawmaker, of course, filed joint tax returns with a man who wasn’t her husband even though she was legally married to someone else.

Here’s that report…

Aaron Blake


“Omar, for two years running, filed joint tax returns with a man she was living with but not legally married to. Complicating matters further, she was legally married to another man at the time.” 

EDITORIAL | Ilhan Omar’s credibility takes another hit

Tax return irregularities are just the latest misstep by the first-term congresswoman.

7,703 people are talking about this

As is typical with tthe left, emails reveal Omar’s team was looking to shut down the negative press by silencing a journalist.


Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

My God. Props to @bloisolson for sharing.

From @IlhanMN’s crisis manager Ben Goldfarb:

“Does anyone in the team have a relationship with Blois? Someone should probably reach out to talk off the record and shut it down with him AS WE DO WITH THE STRIB” [emphasis added]


1,716 people are talking about this


Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

My God. Props to @bloisolson for sharing.

From @IlhanMN’s crisis manager Ben Goldfarb:

“Does anyone in the team have a relationship with Blois? Someone should probably reach out to talk off the record and shut it down with him AS WE DO WITH THE STRIB” [emphasis added]


View image on Twitter

Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

There are A NUMBER of concerning things here.

1. @IlhanMN‘s team attempting to shut down a legitimate inquiry into tax fraud by a local journalist.

2. Admitting verbatim that they have employed such tactics before for Minnesota’s largest paper (@StarTribune)

974 people are talking about this

Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

There are A NUMBER of concerning things here.

1. @IlhanMN‘s team attempting to shut down a legitimate inquiry into tax fraud by a local journalist.

2. Admitting verbatim that they have employed such tactics before for Minnesota’s largest paper (@StarTribune)

Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

3. @IlhanMN‘s campaign staff is SO unwilling to go on the record with reputable journalists (Can’t speak more highly of @bloisolson) that they resort to finding a fixer who has a “relationship” with Blois to “shut down” the story.

There’s got to be something nefarious here.

471 people are talking about this

Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

4. I, for one, would like to hear comment from the @StarTribunePR on what stories have been “shut down” by @IlhanMN‘s crisis manager through personal relationships, off-the-record interviews, and intimidation tactics.

Any journalists care to comment?

Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

I traditionally have considered the @StarTribune to be a reputable outlet (aside from the awful editorial board)

If @IlhanMN‘s fixer was able to shut down stories from the Star Tribune, imagine how many stories do you think they shut down from @MinnPost, @citypages, and others?

436 people are talking about this

Nick Solheim@NickSSolheim

I traditionally have considered the @StarTribune to be a reputable outlet (aside from the awful editorial board)

If @IlhanMN‘s fixer was able to shut down stories from the Star Tribune, imagine how many stories do you think they shut down from @MinnPost, @citypages, and others?

314 people are talking about this

Oregon GOP Senators Defiant After Governor Threatens Arrests

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Bravo to the Republican Senators in Oregon for standing up to the tyranny of the DemocRat majority as they try to ram through their bullshi! cap and trade legislation.

This cap and trade legislation if passed will cost millions of jobs in Oregon.

The is absolutely zero proof of globull warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it now. 

Legislators have fled state to block a gas and emissions tax

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Hatred Of The Second Amendment Knows No Bounds

H/T AmmoLand.

The hatred of the Second Amendment and guns by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is no doubt a sign of mental illness.

We can also see the failure of gun control laws proposed and enforced in New York City and surrounding areas.

In spite of the ignorant ravings by Little Andy Cuomo disarming honest citizens is not the answer to gun crimes.

Here is a list of places gun control worked Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Chairman Mao’s China and Castro’s Cuba.


New York – -( New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hates guns, all kinds of guns. He hates them with a passion. His vehement disdain for these inanimate objects rests on the ground that, as he perceives it, they serve no legitimate or useful purpose. Guns do kill, of course. That fact isn’t to be denied. But, there is a huge difference between guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and guns in the hands of law-abiding, trained individuals, on the other—a world of difference that antigun zealots don’t seem to recognize or appreciate; or, if they do, then it is something they simply refuse to acknowledge.

Criminals and lunatics use guns to threaten life and to destroy innocent life. Law-abiding rational citizens use guns to thwart threats by criminals and lunatics, in order to protect their life and other innocent life.

The mainstream media and antigun zealots invariably conflate the two or otherwise skirt this critical difference. Why do they do this? They do so because drawing attention to a clear and obvious difference between misuse of guns by criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and the proper, lawful use of guns for self-defense by the law-abiding citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t fit the false and shameless narrative antigun zealots wish to convey: that no concrete difference exists between proper lawful use and improper illegal use of firearms.

Thus, Cuomo and other Radical Leftists refuse even so much as to acknowledge, even if grudgingly, the benefits a firearm affords the average law-abiding citizen. After all, they have a fairy tale to tell the public. And it is that the armed citizen is somehow less safe when confronted by an assailant and that society, too, is more threatened by an armed citizenry.

Removing firearms from the hands of the average, honest, rational, law-abiding American citizen is their raison d’etre. So, Cuomo and the Radical Left elements that comprise antigun groups continue their call for ever more restrictive gun laws; weaving a fable—one consistent with both the tenets of Collectivism and with their own warped political, social, and ethical view of society and of the role and place of the citizen in that society. The Second Amendment is an anathema to them. Thus, they seek no less than the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment.

It is the American citizenry, itself, that antigun zealots, like Cuomo, seek to disarm; it isn’t the criminal element and the occasional lunatic they are really intent on disarming. If Cuomo’s true aim and that of the Radical Left, pertaining to gun ownership and gun possession, remains hidden, then it is hidden in plain view.

The plain fact of the matter is that Cuomo and other Progressives and Radical Leftists do not truly consider the Bill of Rights to be a salient component of the Constitution. Yet, the Ten Amendments, that comprise our Bill of Rights, must be taken together, as the framers intended, as one, unified whole, and an integral and critical component of the U.S. Constitution.

Cuomo and those who agree with is political and social philosophy play with the Ten Amendments, pretending that these Ten Amendments—fundamental, primordial, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator—are, in their inception, nothing more than man-made constructions, not unlike any Congressional Statute, which they are not. But, this is the tacit assumption and fiction that informs all the policy decisions and aims of Cuomo and of the other Radical Leftists, who hold to, and place their faith in, the tenets of Collectivism.

How often have New York residents heard this third-term Governor, Cuomo, bombastically asserting that he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, even as his actions invariably belie his words?

Governor Cuomo, and others who express his sentiments, reject the Second Amendment out-of-hand—a critical component of and, in fact, one of the most important components of the Constitution, as a Free Republic would not long exist without it. Yet, Cuomo and others of his political and social persuasion couldn’t care less about the Constitution, even as they exclaim, disingenuously and hypocritically, that they do.

Andrew Cuomo is Absolutely Apoplectic About Both Guns and Civilian Ownership and Possession Of Guns

Americans must not forget that Cuomo’s obsession with guns, generally, and with civilian ownership and possession of guns, particularly, isn’t something he concocted out-of-the-blue, and it didn’t happen yesterday. Having been able to use his State, New York, as a test-bed for his radical antigun policies to play out, Cuomo’s attack on the Second Amendment commenced many years ago, on January 1, 2011, during his first term in Office. Cuomo’s agenda then took shape over time, rapidly gathering steam, during the course of his first four-year term in Office, as New York’s Governor. Let Americans be ever mindful of that.

As reported by the weblog Observer, in an article published on January 9, 2013, titled, ‘Cuomo Vows to ‘Enact the Toughest Assault Weapon Ban in the Nation, Period!’

“One of the most hotly anticipated elements of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s annual State of the State address today [to the New York Legislature, delivered on Jan 9, 2013] was his plan to enact ‘sweeping’ gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, the governor outlined a seven-point gun control plan focused on “high-capacity assault rifles” that he promised would be one of the ‘toughest’ in the nation and lead similar laws to spread beyond New York.

The governor outlined the items on his seven-point gun plan.

‘Number one: Enact the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation, period!’ he shouted, before ticking off his other new gun control proposals. ‘Number two, close the private sale loophole by requiring federal background checks. Number three, ban high-capacity magazines. Number four, enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns in school grounds and violent gangs. Number five, keep guns from people who are mentally ill. Number six, ban direct internet sales of ammunition in New York. Number seven, create a state [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check on all ammunition purchases.’

[To this 7 Point list, we can now add, Cuomo’s 8th Point: “On Monday, February 25, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Red Flag Bill into law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He was joined by many of his colleagues in New York State government, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to celebrate this new legislation, the first in the nation of its kind. . . .” (Source: John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Mr. Cuomo predicting the rest of the country will follow New York’s lead and adopt stiffer gun laws].

By the end of the speech, the governor was shouting.”

Cuomo never intended his antigun agenda to be confined to one State. His agenda was much more ambitious. On October 30, 2015, The New York Times exclaimed, in an article titled, “Cuomo Planning Role in National Gun Control Campaign,” that Cuomo anticipated national attention. “ ‘The political climate is right again for action,’ ” said Mr. Cuomo, who has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. He added, ‘The appetite is there, I think, in the presidential election, especially in the Democratic primary but also in the general election.’ ” Well, that didn’t come to pass and Governor Cuomo obviously never forgave Donald Trump for having had the audacity to win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereby dashing Cuomo’s hope of implementation of a National NY Safe Act—dashing Cuomo’s hope of adding an important feather in “Chief Cuomo’s” own headdress. See article in the weblog, “Syracuse,” posted on April 29, 2019, titled, “Cuomo to Trump on gun violence: You have done nothing but tweet.”

Don’t for a moment think that the incessant, vicious, virulent attack on the Second Amendment won’t factor as a major issue in the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential election, as Democrats gear up for the debates, beginning this month. It most definitely will! And Cuomo will, no doubt, be cheering the Candidates on, all the way.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Brace Yourselves, Gun Owners: Dems Introduced A New Gun Control Bill

H/T Bearing Arms.

Delusional DemocRats will hit the demonization of sound suppressors as John Q Public is more ignorant as to how a suppressor really works.

Anything John Q Public knows about sound suppressors aka silencers is what they see in the movies that are a pack of lies.

In spite of what the gangster and James Bond movies show the suppressor does not make a firearm whisper quite.

Multiple anti-gunners in the Senate are moving to ban suppressors following the tragic shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act is being introduced by Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (NJ), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Richard Blumenthal (CA) and Tim Kaine (VA).

“We were reminded how dangerous silencers can be a few weeks ago, when a gunman used a .45 caliber handgun fitted with a suppressor to kill 12 Americans in Virginia Beach. What first sounded like a nail-gun ended up being gunfire,” Menendez said in a statement. “The sound of gunshots is what tells you that your life is danger, and that it’s time to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves. At the end of the day if you can hear a weapon you might just save a life.”

“Dangerous gun silencers, like the one used in the Virginia Beach shooting earlier this month that killed 12, don’t belong in our communities,” Feinstein said. “This legislation is a commonsense proposal that will save lives.”

“The only people who could reasonably oppose a ban on gun silencers are criminals trying to avoid detection by law enforcement or mass murderers trying to hurt as many people as possible,” Blumenthal said. “Whether a firearm is being used in a mugging or a massacre, the sound of a gunshot is a warning that helps bystanders get to safety and allows law enforcement to track and apprehend the shooter.”

“We need to be doing everything in our power to reduce gun violence and improve the safety of our communities. At least one survivor of the tragic shooting in Virginia Beach, where the shooter used a silencer, said that the gunfire sounded more like a nail gun,” Kaine said. “Banning silencers won’t eliminate gun violence, but this is a reform that would help law enforcement locate active shooters and save more lives,”

In addition to an outright ban, the HEAR Act would:

• Authorize a buyback program for silencers using federal Byrne JAG grants;
• Provide individuals with a 90-day grace period after the date of enactment for individuals to comply with the ban;
• Provide limited exceptions for certain current and former law enforcement personnel, for certain Atomic Energy personnel and purposes, and for certain authorized testing or experimentation.

Gun rights groups have opposed the outright ban of suppressors, also known as silencers. In fact, the firearms industry pushed for the Hearing Protection Act of 2017, which would have deregulated the firearm accessory. As it currently stands, suppressors are highly regulated. Currently, anyone who wants to purchase a sound suppressor must undergo the National Firearms Act’s application process, pay a $200 stamp fee, a background check and wait a long period of time, generally 9 months to a year. The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 would have removed suppressors from the NFA and treated it as a regular firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

Pro-gun groups are generally opposed to this type of legislation because more people can benefit from suppressors, especially if someone participates in the shooting sports. In fact, an audiologist explained the long-term benefits suppressors provide to hunters, shooting sports competitors, and even the average, everyday gun enthusiast.

“I treat hearing loss and I see the ill-effects of hearing loss every day with my patients,” audiologist Steven Wade previously said. “Once somebody is exposed to loud sounds and they have damaged their hearing — whether it be gunshots or other types of loud impulse sounds — that cochlear becomes damaged and it’s irreversible damage.”

Pro-gun groups made their position known.

Mark Oliva, the Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, slammed Menendez and friends for pushing falsehoods about suppressors:

Senator Menendez is purposefully misrepresenting suppressors. Suppressors are the most highly-regulated firearms accessory today. Senator Menendez knows the truth is suppressors reduce the sound of a muzzle blast from a decibel level equal to a jet taking off to that of a jackhammer, not quite the nail gun he’s claiming similarities to. He could have easily chosen to witness this for himself if he accepted National Shooting Sports Foundation’s invitation to hear suppressors in the Capitol Police gun range two years ago. Conveniently, Senator Menendez, nor any of his staff, responded to that invitation.

Suppressed gunfire is clearly audible and will gain the attention of anyone within the vicinity. Suppressors are legal for ownership in 42 states and 40 for hunting. More than 1.5 million suppressors are owned and operated for lawful purposes every day.

Basing national firearms policy on fiction spy movies is hardly the way we should legislate and our nation’s more than 100 million law-abiding firearms owners deserve better from their elected officials. The senator is ignoring clear facts; that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered recommending moving suppressor regulation from the 1934 National Firearms Act to the 1968 Gun Control Act because of the rarity in which they are used in crimes. From 1995-2005, less than 0.1% of homicides in federal court, an infinitesimally low 0.00006% of felonies in California and a mere 0.1% of armed robberies involved a suppressor. The ATF noted in an unpublished 2017 White Paper that an average of just 44 cases involving suppressors per year over a 10 year period were recommended for prosecution. In fact, many of the European countries which Senator Menendez looks to as an example of strict gun laws require the use of a suppressor and they are available over the counter in hardware stores.

This is a disturbing exploitation of a tragedy when the senator would be better served using his platform to provide real solutions for safer communities across America, instead of vilifying and attempting to deny law-abiding American citizens their rights.

“GOA is opposed to the National Firearms Act and its current restrictions on suppressors, and GOA will oppose any legislation, like the Menendez bill, to ban them. Suppressors are safety devices that act more like a car muffler, rather than the Hollywood notion of a ‘silencer,’ which is a myth,” Gun Owners of America’s Senior Vice President told Townhall. “So while suppressors don’t reduce the sound of a gun shot to a whisper, as so deceptively portrayed in many movies, they are a health benefit, which is why the CDC recommends that people use suppressors to protect their hearing.”

“The favorite word of anti-gun rights Democrats is ‘ban’ it. First it was handguns, then it was semi-auto so-called ‘assault’ weapons. Then they added standard capacity magazines to the list. Now it is suppressors. And they also want to ban gun shows and advertising for firearms and ammunition. If they could they would ban gun owners from voting,” Second Amendment Foundation Founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told Townhall.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear a multi-state challenge to firearm suppressor laws in Jeremy Kettler v. United States, which challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically in relation to firearms suppressors.

The National Rifle Association did not immediately respond to Townhall’s request for comment.