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.

 

Advertisements

DOJ exploring ‘unbelievably unusual activity’ in final months of Obama administration

Jim Campbell's

Comment by Jim Campbell

June 25th 2019

They have had the goods on him for years, treason, sedition, supporting Islam, you name it.

The question now remains, what will they do with him if they actually bring him to justice?

Fox News

By Daniel Chaitin  

June 25, 2019

See the source image

    Rep. Mark Meadows said the Justice Department is examining
    irregularities in the intelligence community as part of its review of
    the origins of the Russia investigation.

    Reacting to newly released documents on changes in U.S. procedures for sharing raw intelligence, Meadows said there was “unbelievably unusual activity” in the final months of the Obama administration.

    “I can tell you that [U.S. Attorney] John Durham and
    Attorney General [William] Barr are going to get to the bottom of it,”
    the North Carolina Republican said Monday evening on Fox News. “They are
    including in part of their surveillance — really looking at the

    View original post 502 more words

    Biden: Congress should immediately make ‘Dreamers’ citizens

    H/T Yahoo News.

    Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden is grasping at straws trying to stay relevant in the 2020 Presidential race.

    Personally, I say take a page from President Eisenhower’s playbook and round all of the Dreamers up and deport them.

    Weighing in on immigration before first Democratic debates, Joe Biden is proposing that Congress grant immediate citizenship to more than 800,000 U.S. residents who were brought to the country illegally as children.

    The former vice president and Democratic polling leader introduced some of his immigration priorities Monday in a newspaper op-ed that blisters President Donald Trump for an “assault on the dignity” of the Latino community through policies and rhetoric designed to “scare voters” in 2020.

    “Trump repeatedly invokes racist invective to describe anyone south of the Rio Grande,” Biden writes, assailing him for “actions that subvert our American values and our ability to lead on the global stage.”

    Biden, who launched his 2020 campaign in April, calls for streamlining the asylum system for migrants and spending more on electronic security at borders instead of building Trump’s proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall. And he blasts Trump’s latest threats of mass deportation and his decision to cut aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, three Central American nations that are sources of the increasing wave of migrants to the U.S. border.

    Trump, a Republican, maintains that his immigration policies are necessary to keep the country safe. He also has made clear that his 2020 reelection strategy is focused squarely on his base, which since his 2015 campaign launch has embraced his hard-line nationalism and economic protectionism.

    Biden’s op-ed is published in the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, with Biden using the English and Spanish versions to praise the diversity of the surrounding city where 20 Democratic candidates will take the debate stage in two heats Wednesday and Thursday.

    Biden has not yet offered detailed immigration policy proposals beyond the outline.

    Nonetheless, the op-ed is part of a series of policy pronouncements of varying levels of detail as Biden tries to maintain his lead in national and early state polls of Democratic primary voters. Separately, he’s offered education and climate action proposals, and his campaign has said health care and criminal justice plans are coming.

    In his Miami newspaper piece, Biden further pledges an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy in the Americas, echoing fellow Democrats who’ve panned Trump’s approach to Mexico, Central America and South America.

    “The Administration’s Latin America policy is at best a Cold War-era retread, and at worst an ineffective mess,” Biden writes, citing Trump’s tariff threats in Mexico, his refusal to grant temporary legal status to political refugees from Venezuela and U.S. ambivalence about rising instability in Central America.

    The answer, Biden argued, is U.S. engagement and aid that expands “economic opportunity … so that people feel safe to stay in their home countries,” and he argued that as President Barack Obama’s top lieutenant he “led a major, bipartisan effort to address the root causes that push people to flee” those nations.

    Apart from his citizenship proposal for people who came to the U.S. as children, Biden in his outline does not directly address the more than 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. As vice president, Biden backed an immigration overhaul that would have established a path to citizenship for most of those residents. That effort cleared the Senate but died in what was then a Republican-led House.

    The immigrants brought to the U.S. as children are commonly referred to as “Dreamers” because of never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act, which would have allowed them to remain in the country if they met certain criteria. Opponents say the act would reward people for breaking the law, encourage illegal immigration and hurt American workers.

    Immigration has not been a top priority among Democratic presidential candidates thus far, other than sweeping condemnations of Trump’s values and priorities. The two Texans in the race — former Cabinet secretary Julián Castro and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke — have placed the most emphasis on the matter.

    Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has joined them in releasing a detailed immigration plan . All three call for a citizenship pathway for immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Castro has gone the farthest, proposing that border crossings be decriminalized altogether, regardless of whether a migrant is seeking legal asylum under the existing process.

    Schiff on Impeachment: ‘At This Point, I’m Not Prepared to Recommend It’

    H/T Breitbart.

    Pencil Neck Schiff(Delusional-CA)knows that impeachment will assure the DemocRats will pay a heavy toll in 2010.

    Despite many Democrats calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has backed away from that stance, saying Sunday he is “not prepared to recommend it” at this time.

    Schiff, who has previously claimed to have “ample evidence” of collusion between Trump and the Russians in 2016, said he “does not know the answer” to whether or not he agrees that Trump will be impeached.

    “We may get there,” Schiff told Jake Tapper, host of CNN’s “State of the Union.” “What would get me to that point is if we get to a final court decision compelling the administration to provide testimony and documents and they still refuse, then I think we are in a full-blown constitutional crisis that would compel that kind of remedy.”

    Just-Promoted DCCC Official Has History of Homophobic, Racist Comments

    H/T The Washington Free Beacon. 

      Tayhlor Coleman will get a pass on her remarks because she is black a woman and a DemocRat.

    Top committee staffer Tayhlor Coleman deletes tweets after Free Beacon inquiry

    A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee official tapped last week to lead a new multimillion-dollar initiative to connect with “people of color and younger Americans” deleted thousands of old tweets after the Washington Free Beacon reached out regarding many homophobic and racially insensitive posts.

    Tayhlor Coleman, a longtime staffer at the committee, was named the DCCC’s first director of the cycle of engagement, a role DCCC chairwoman Rep. Cheri Bustos (D., Ill.) said would be a “tremendous challenge.”

    “I want to thank Tayhlor Coleman for taking on this tremendous challenge at this critical moment,” Bustos said. “I can think of no one more prepared to lead this effort than her.”

    Coleman took to Twitter this month to express her support for the gay community, but her previous posts give a different perspective of her views.

    In February 2010, for example, she tweeted out concern about “giving a lesbian” her phone number, tagging the tweet with “#homophobia.”

    Coleman in July 2010 said “Lmfao yesssssssssssssss!” in response to somebody saying, “I would never trust a dude born && raised in atlanta…its so homo out here.”

    Coleman has also regularly used the phrase “no homo,” a homophobic term born in the rap community used by men to make sure what they said won’t be construed as gay. She once wondered whether male athletes say “no homo” after smacking each other’s butts.

     

    Coleman also once said she was too “concerned about safety” to go to a vending machine because there may be Mexicans there, a fear that may make outreach to the Hispanic community difficult.

    In 2009, Coleman said she was “working like a dark skinned slave.”

    Neither Coleman nor the DCCC responded to a Sunday afternoon request for comment on the tweets, but all of the above tweets, along with thousands of others, were quickly deleted after the inquiry. On Friday there were 4,524 tweets available from her account, but on Sunday afternoon there were just 1,043.

    This reporter was also blocked from seeing Coleman’s tweets on Sunday afternoon.

    The DCCC, which currently has a special LGBTQ “pride month” logo on its Twitter account, recently condemned “Trump’s disgusting LGBTQ+ agenda in the strongest possible terms,” and said “LGBTQ+ Americans are under attack” by Trump and Republicans, who pose a “grave threat” to equality.

    Coleman last summer said former Department of Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was a white supremacist for “trying to enjoy a meal at a Mexican restaurant.”

    Earlier this year Coleman falsely accused Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, of being one of the parents named by prosecutors in the college admissions bribery scandal, saying if he “spent less time dog whistling about brown people voting he could’ve helped his kid prepare for the SATs instead of BRIBING their way into college.” It was a different Greg Abbott.

    The DCCC last cycle demanded Republicans denounce former Minnesota congressman Jason Lewis after comments he made a number of years ago regarding the gay community were surfaced.

    “Every day that he refuses to take responsibility and that Republican leadership stands by him is a moral stain on their Party,” a DCCC spokesperson said.

    Maine: Legislature Adjourns Sine Die, Gun Control Measures Defeated

    H/T AmmoLand.

    Gun owners in Maine have a little more freedom thanks to the defeat of these gun control measures.

    Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- On June 20th, 2019, the Maine Legislature adjourned from the first session of the 129th Legislature.

    During this session, several egregious pieces of anti-gun legislation were defeated, including bills to criminalize private transfers of firearms and ban many commonly-owned standard capacity magazines.  Thwarting efforts to threaten shooting ranges, the Legislature instead took steps to protect ranges, passing a bill that Governor Janet Mills signed into law.  Unfortunately, the Legislature missed an opportunity to pass a Stand Your Ground measure, LD 533, that would have strengthened Mainers’ fundamental right to self-defense anywhere they are legally allowed to be.

    Legislative Document 79 , sponsored by Representative Patrick Corey (R-District 25), protects shooting ranges by allowing the discharge of a firearm on a sport shooting range that is within 100 yards of a building, if the sport shooting range was in regular operation prior to the erection of the building.  This will ensure that those who choose to construct new buildings within 100yd of established sport shooting ranges cannot threaten them with court fees, hiatus, or closure of operations.  Maine’s shooting ranges will be protected and remain venues where shooters can practice their shooting skills in a safe, responsible environment.  LD 79 was signed into law by Gov. Mills on March 29th.

    Anti-Gun Bills Defeated

    • Legislative Document 379, sponsored by Representative Victoria Doudera (D-94), and Legislative Document 1033, sponsored by Representative Anne Perry (D-140), would have imposed a one-size-fits-all, government mandated firearm storage requirement that would impair the ability of law-abiding Mainers to access firearms in the home to defend themselves and their families.
    • Legislative Document 747, sponsored by Representative Barbara Cardone (D-127), Legislative Document 810, sponsored by Senator David Miramant (D-12), and Legislative Document 1276, sponsored by Senator Linda Sanborn (D-30), would have effectively criminalized the private transfer of firearms.
    • Legislative Document 1569, sponsored by Representative Lois Reckitt (D-31), would have essentially ended the centuries old practice of home manufacturing firearms for personal use.
    • Legislative Document 1071, sponsored by Rep. Cardone, would have defined most standard capacity magazines as “high capacity” if they can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition and make it a Class D crime to sell or supply them, unless one had “the authority to do so.”
    • Legislative Document 1099, sponsored by Senator Brownie Carson (D-24), would have delayed Second Amendment rights by imposing a 72-hour waiting period before an individual may receive firearms that they purchase.
    • Legislative Document 516, sponsored by Representative Heidi Brooks (D-61), would have directed the Commissioner of Public Safety to administer a statewide voluntary firearm collection day, and to establish a voluntary firearm collection program administered by the Bureau of the State Police.  The bill would have compelled disclosure of personal information of individuals turning in firearms, and with no restrictions on how the police could have used this information.
    • Legislative Document 869, sponsored by Representative Mattea Daughtry (D-49), was a concept draft that included no detail on the specific gun control measures being proposed by the sponsor.
    • Legislative Document 1470, sponsored by Senator Catherine Breen (D-25), would have allowed political subdivisions and municipalities to create arbitrary boundaries at public proceedings and polling places where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against the criminals who ignore such restrictions.
    • Legislative Document 489, sponsored by Senator Justin Chenette (D-31), would have allowed noise ordinances to be used to shut down local shooting ranges, even if they operated safely and were otherwise in full compliance with the law.

    Thank you to NRA members and Second Amendment supporters that attended committee hearings and contacted legislators throughout the session.

    Your NRA-ILA will be back at the Capitol for the second session of the 129th Legislature, and in the meantime, please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on issues impacting our Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.


    National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

    About:
    Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

    CA Swamp Strikes Again: Apparently Gov. Newsom And Legislatures ‘Deserve’ A Pay Raise

    H/T Town Hall.

    Damn what a sweet gig being a Delusional DemocRat in Commiefornia getting a pay raise for seven straight years.

    he California Citizens Compensation Commission (CCCC) on Friday voted unanimously to give Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and state lawmakers a four percent increase, the Sacramento Bee reported. According to the Committee, a strong economy and a healthy state budget were justifiable reasons to provide the state’s politicians with a pay raise.

    The decision to raise lawmakers’ salaries was based on “what is fair, what is appropriate in light of the economy, in light of the state budget,” Commission Chairman Thomas Dalzell told the Los Angeles Times. “The economy is doing well, the state is doing well, and it’s important work that they do.”

    According to the Associated Pressthis is the seventh consecutive year the governor has received a salary increase.

    Current salaries, which went into effect on Dec. 3, 2018, currently sit at:

    • Governor $201,680
    • Lieutenant Governor $151,260
    • Attorney General $175,182
    • Controller $161,342
    • Treasurer $161,342
    • Secretary of State $151,260
    • Superintendent of Public Instruction $175,182
    • Insurance Commissioner $161,342
    • Member, Board of Equalization $151,260
    • Members, State Legislature $110,459
    • Assembly Speaker/Senate President Pro Tem $127,026
    • Minority Floor Leader $127,026
    • Majority Floor Leader $118,743
    • Second Ranking Minority Leader $118,743

    Salaries will now be:

    • Governor $209,747
    • Lieutenant Governor $157,310
    • Attorney General $182,189
    • Controller $167,795
    • Treasurer $167,795
    • Secretary of State $157,310
    • Superintendent of Public Instruction $182,189
    • Insurance Commissioner $167,795
    • Member, Board of Equalization $157,310
    • Members, State Legislature $114,877
    • Assembly Speaker/Senate President Pro Tem $132,107
    • Minority Floor Leader $132,107
    • Majority Floor Leader $123,492
    • Second Ranking Minority Leader $123,492

    The CCCC is made up of four members, all of which are appointed by the governor. The group is required to meet annually to vote on what happens to elected officials’ salaries.

    The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wasn’t happy about the decision.

    “California still has the highest-paid legislature in the nation,” Jon Coupal, president of the association, said. “They have highly paid politicians in a very dysfunctional state. Quite frankly, I would say the economic health of California is in spite of policy decisions by state officials, not because of them.”

    Here’s where things get rather swampy: the Commission has come under fire recently for nepotism.

    From the Times: 

    One state lawmaker was critical of raises that bump the annual pay of the four elected members of the state Board of Equalization to $157,310. Two years ago, the governor and Legislature stripped the board of most of its powers and duties and reduced the state board from 4,800 workers to just 400.

    The downsizing of the board occurred after a series of audits found widespread nepotism and improper interference with decisions to open field offices and transfer staffers, some of whom were assigned to duties that promoted the elected officials.

    Because of that, the board’s pay raises were inappropriate, Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood) said.

    “It’s actions like this that erode public confidence in everything we do up at the Capitol,” Nazarian said. “This commission is voting to increase the pay for agency officeholders that don’t have 90% of their previous workload. It just doesn’t make sense.”

    Nazarian is carrying a bill to ask California voters to eliminate the elected board, and he hopes his colleagues will act on it next year.

    Dalzell said he supports looking next year at whether the salaries of the tax board are commensurate with members’ workload and reduced responsibilities.

    California voters established the Committee in 1990. It was designed to take away the legislature’s ability to set their own pay. In theory, this is a really good idea. In practice, it’s horrible.

    The issue here is the appointment aspect. Governors get to pick who sits on the board, which means they’re going to pick friends, those who are likely to continually give raises. And you know this means Committee members will get their back scratched down the road. Just how they’re repaid? We can only speculate.

    If this Commission was about making sure politicians are held accountable, the people on the Commission would have to run for office. They would have to be chosen by the people, not by those whose pay they’re dictating.