What To Do If Approached About Carrying A Firearm In A Store

H/T AmmoLand.

This is some very sound advice.


Gun In A Shopping Cart iStock-498841228
What To Do If Approached About Carrying A Firearm In A Store

Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- Now that some of the dust has settled, here is some more information and thoughts on Walmart, Kroger, and the other stores that are “virtue signaling” on guns:


The video of the open-carrier getting kicked out of a Walmart in Kentucky happened before Walmart’s virtue signaling episode began. It appears to have had more to do with the gun owner embarrassing Walmart by trying to get someone to help him at the unattended firearms counter, than him having an openly-carried handgun. Here is a link to the Facebook posting from the gun owner on that incident.

Several people here in Virginia and in Texas have tested open carry in Walmarts and have had no issues. No change in signage at Walmart has yet occurred either. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/460652-gun-rights-activists-test-walmart-request-not-to-open-carry-guns-into-store

For now it would seem that it is business as usual if you wish to carry at Walmart openly or concealed. Of course, there is the issue of Walmart asking Congress for more gun control – which is stupid and unacceptable.

Another store virtue signals on guns. https://wtvr.com/2019/09/11/publix-joins-retailers-asking-customers-not-to-openly-carry-guns-into-its-stores/

Publix is now virtue signaling the same message as Walmart, Kroger, CVS, Walgreens and others by asking customers not to open carry in their stores. I, for one, personally, and respectfully, decline to honor that request.

Various companies have sent a letter to the Senate calling for more gun control

Here is the letter from close to 150 companies we need to stop doing business with (Uber, Lyft, Levi’s, Gap, Nextdoor, JJ Abrams, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Yelp, and many others). How stupid of all these companies to bring politics into their businesses. They have just needlessly lost a lot of customers.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz let their CEOs have it with this response.

Seems support for gun control is trending down.

What To Do If Approached About Carrying A Firearm In A Store

I have been conferring with one of Virginia Citizens Defense League’s attorneys and offer this general advice if approached by a store employee and/or the police while carrying in a business:

If approached by a store employee, ask to speak to the manager (often employees don’t know that while the store may prohibit them, as employees, from carrying at work, the store may not prevent customers from doing so).

If the manager or store security confirms they don’t want you carrying in the store, just politely and quietly leave the store. Do NOT ask that they post the business with a “no guns” sign.

You DO NOT have to identify yourself, nor do you have to sign anything. You should simply leave without argument.

If the police are involved and they ask you to identify yourself, you should do so to them only. Do NOT sign any document except in the extremely unlikely case that it is a summons to appear in court issued by the police. (Failure to sign a summons will leave the police with no choice but to arrest you.) Leave the store once the police have indicated you are free to go. If the police want you to sign something from the company, just say you don’t sign anything unless you have a lawyer present and stick to that. You will not be charged with trespass if this is the first time the police have approached you at that business. You have committed no crime, so there is nothing to sign.

All that said, be polite to the officers and do NOT debate the company’s policy with the police. You have nothing to gain by being anything other than reasonable and pleasant.

Virginia Citizens Defense LeagueAbout Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.


Jackson Lee’s AR-15 Ignorance is More Democrat Political Malpractice

H/T AmmoLand.

We all get a chuckle or two any time Shelia Jackson Lee(Delusional-TX)opens her mouth.

Like her saying, Neil Armstrong planted the flag on Mars the Constitution is 400 years old.

Now saying how heavy the AR-15 and saying it uses a .50 caliber round.

Here is a thought that should scare you to your very soul is the ignorance level of the people that elected and reelects Shelia Jackson Lee(Delusional-TX).

Gungrabby Gabby Giffords and her handlers know they can rely on the stunning incompetence of Sheila Jackson Lee and her useful idiot constituents to help them out with any citizen disarmament edict they need to be pushed. (Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee / Facebook photo)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “I’ve held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I hadn’t,” Texas Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee claims to an approving media while trying to get House members to “flood” the Senate and demand new citizen disarmament edicts. “It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber, these kinds of bullets, need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.”

Coming in at just over six-and-a-half pounds with a full magazine of .223 rounds, one wonders if those are boxes of chocolate Lee is referring to. Her similarities to “Forrest Gump” don’t end there, as you never know what you’re going to get every time she opens her mouth. To paraphrase a quote from another popular movie, “Tropic Thunder,” she went full Jackson Lee.  Everybody knows you don’t go full Jackson Lee.

Not that anything stops her from doing just that, and repeatedly. As long as we’re mentioning movies, we can’t forget “Idiocracy,” and note we’re talking about a lawmaker who has treated us to such gems as:

  • The Constitution is 400 years old.
  • Astronaut Neil Armstrong planted the flag on Mars.
  • There are still two Vietnams.
  • Klansmen are now the Tea Party.

There’s more, but you get the picture. To her credit, at least Jackson Lee hasn’t publicly speculated about Guam tipping over.

But since Jackson Lee has now turned her vast subject matter expertise to guns, it would be remiss not to recall she’s not the only ignoramus politician. It wasn’t all that long ago we saw New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy challenged by Tucker Carlson of Fox News to explain what a “barrel shroud” was, as that was a  feature her so-called “assault weapon” bill would ban. After much deflection and trying to avoid answering the question, she was finally cornered into admitting she had no idea:

“I believe it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”

And then we had New York Democrat Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington, who had this to say about the .50 caliber rounds Jackson Lee “thinks” you load AR-15s with:

“But some of these bullets as you saw have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat-seeking device, so you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you could cook it at the same time.”

This was at a press conference, yet not one member of the media called BS and exposed Eddington for the know-nothing that she was. That’s because they don’t know themselves and aren’t held to account for getting it right on guns. Face it, gun bans are what they and their employers are all rooting for. Besides, it’s not like the audiences/readership are informed enough to call them on it. If they were, they’d be getting very different poll results when they ask about support for background checks, red flags, and bans. They can’t allow that.

And thus we have an “informed” Twitter poster who goes by the handle TexasMomsforBeto! (which ought to tell you something in itself), who has no doubt formed her “deep” convictions based on what she’s “learned” from politicians, gun-grab groups and media cheerleaders:

“Here is the thing… I don’t think you could even eat the meat of an animal killed with a semi automatic weapon. It would be so full of shrapnel.”

Yeah, but at least it would be cooked!

“Oh god poor animal,” an equally informed sympathizer agrees.

It’s bad enough that these people cast votes that cancel out ours, allowing politicians like Jackson Lee and their string-pullers to advance more edicts. That they do is nothing short of citizenship malpractice.

Worse is the political malpractice committed by arrogant, oath-breaking officeholders. Whether they’re genuine mental defectives, deliberate subversives or both, they’re enabled and empowered by useful idiot constituents.

And the interests of those who would rule (and the media they control) are to keep ‘em dumb…

Manchin: ‘Beto O’Rourke’s Not Taking My Guns Away From Me’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Little Bobby Francis O’Rourke exposed the DemocRats true agenda on guns.

Now they are running for cover and taking potshots at him.

Senator says O’Rourke’s comment harms Democrats.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) on Wednesday said presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke “is not taking my guns away from me.”

O’Rourke, a former congressman from El Paso, Texas, has made gun confiscation part of his presidential platform in a bid to capture voters on the left. His poll numbers have been flagging, but he gained a great deal of media attention at last week’s debate by saying “hell yes” he would confiscate AR-15s.

Manchin was not impressed.

“I can tell you one thing: Beto O’Rourke’s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?” Manchin told Wall Street Journal reporter Lindsay Wise.

Manchin also said it was “very harmful” to the Democratic Party for O’Rourke to make it look like Democrats want to seize lawfully owned firearms.

“Beto’s one human being. He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats,” Manchin said.

Lindsay Wise@lindsaywise

Dem Sen. @JoeManchinWV on Beto pledge to confiscate AR15s:

“Beto’s one human being. He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: @BetoORourke‘s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?”

1,182 people are talking about this

In the United States, there are an estimated 16 million AR-15s and AK-47s—the two types of rifles O’Rourke said he would confiscate as president. The FBI found rifles of any kind were used in only 403 murders in 2017, far fewer than handguns. But many gun control advocates in the media and the Democratic Party have targeted the AR-15.

O’Rourke’s campaign immediately went after Manchin on Twitter. His national director of rapid response, Lauren Hitt, dismissed Manchin’s opinion because he voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has faced an onslaught of sexual assault accusations from the left.

Lauren Hitt@LaurenHitt

Let me tell you how much I care about the opinion of the Democrat who voted to confirm Kavanaugh https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1174378345594806278 

Lindsay Wise@lindsaywise

Dem Sen. @JoeManchinWV on Beto pledge to confiscate AR15s:

“Beto’s one human being. He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: @BetoORourke‘s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?”

108 people are talking about this

During the Democratic presidential debate in Houston Thursday, O’Rourke made his position on so-called assault weapons clear.

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

O’Rourke’s debate performance did not stop his slide in the polls. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, O’Rourke is at 1 percent, down from 2 percent in July.

Some in the media have questioned whether O’Rourke has helped gun control efforts. MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell said it would be harder to pass gun legislation after O’Rourke called to confiscate guns from lawful owners. For Democrats and the media, it has long been a talking point that “no one” wants to take guns away from civilians.

Parkland Dad: Democrats Passing Laws Making School Shootings More Likely

H/T Breitbart.

Sadly this father is correct.

Left-wing education policies and laws, particularly regarding restrictions on disciplinary measures such as suspensions and expulsions for disruptive and violent students, increase the likelihood of school shootings, assessed Andrew Pollack, father of Meadow Jade Pollack, who was murdered during the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Pollack joined Monday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight to discuss with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak his recently published bookWhy Meadow Died: The People and Policies that Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students.

“This is what led to my daughter getting killed, these policies of not holding kids accountable,” said Pollack, addressing last week’s passage of SB 419 in California, which bans suspensions of willfully defiant students from kindergarten to grade eight

“The bill that got passed, it’s illegal in the state of California to suspend or expel a disruptive child, and that just went into law,” Pollack said. “How is it going to affect them when there’s no consequence of discipline in the classroom? When the teacher has to spend 10 [or] 15 minutes per class [or] learning session on handling disruptive kids.”


Pollak commented, “This bill is signed as some sort of social justice measure.”

“That ideology, for someone to think that way, it’s the exact opposite, okay?” replied Pollack. “You need to hold children accountable when they’re juveniles and teach them right from wrong so you set them up for success when they’re over 18 and adults.”

“This liberal ideology of not holding kids accountable [is not] going to work,” Pollack added.

Pollack recalled the implementation of the Obama administration’s PROMISE Program (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education), which was oriented around racial and ethnic quotas for application of disciplinary measures in schools. The program’s advocates marketed it as a manifestation of “restorative justice.”

Pollack said, “In Broward County, felonies from 18 to 25 have risen since they implemented these policies. So if you’re a parent and you’re in California, you can’t put your ideology ahead of your kids’ safety.”

“These people that also implemented this stuff, they’re guilty, too,” added Pollack. “They killed my daughter. That’s what I say. It’s not just [the murderer]. They all did it. I owe it to my daughter to hold every single one of these people accountable.”

Left-wing broadening of the “special needs” category of students began to include violent and “emotionally disturbed” children, Pollack said.

“When they have a kid [who is] emotionally disturbed, and they label him ‘special needs,’ it gives them more rights, and it makes them untouchable in the school,” explained Pollack. “That’s what happened with my daughter’s murderer. He was in the school, and they labeled him ‘special needs,’ but for violence. It wasn’t like he was just a kid with a learning disability. That’s one of the horrible policies.”

Pollack went on. “Another one is this PROMISE Program, which is restorative justice, that came out with the Obama administration that wanted to end the school-to-prison pipeline, and when you think about it, in actuality, instead of ending it, it creates the school-to-prison pipeline. These liberals that put it in place, they don’t realize it, that by not holding these kids accountable, they create the school-to-prison pipeline when these kids become adults.”

Winchester Announces Product Recall, of Super-X 17 HMR Ammunition

H/T AmmoLand.

Please help me spread the word about this recall.

Winchester Announces Product Recall of Super-X 17 HMR Ammunition
Winchester Announces Product Recall of Super-X 17 HMR Ammunition

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Olin Winchester, LLC is recalling two (2) lots of 17 HMR 20 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Rimfire rifle ammunition.

  • Symbol: X17HMR1
    ‘Lot Numbers (last four characters): NB51 and NB61

Winchester has determined the above lots of 17 HMR ammunition may contain no powder charges. Ammunition with no powder charges may result in a bullet remaining in the barrel (i.e., a bullet-in-bore obstruction). Firing a subsequent bullet into the bore obstruction could cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable and subjecting the shooter and bystanders to a risk of serious personal injury.


The ammunition Lot Number is stamped on the top of the 1000-round case and the outside of the 50-round plastic box as indicated here.

  • X17HMR1
  • X17HMR1

To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Symbol and Lot Number. If it is Symbol X17HMR1 and the last four characters of the Lot Number are NB51 or NB61, immediately discontinue use and contact Winchester toll-free at 844-653-8358 for free UPS pick-up of the recalled ammunition.

Winchester Announces Product Recall of Super-X 17 HMR Ammunition 2
Winchester Announces Product Recall of Super-X 17 HMR Ammunition 2

This notice applies only to Symbol X17HMR1 with Lot Numbers ending in NB51 and NB61. Other Symbols or Lot Numbers are not subject to this recall.

Winchester Ammo LogoIf you have any questions concerning this 17 HMR rimfire rifle ammunition recall please call toll-free 844-653-8358, write to Winchester (600 Powder Mill Road, East Alton, IL 62024 Attn: X17HMR1 Recall), or visit our website at www.winchester.com.

We apologize for this inconvenience.

President Trump & Congressional GOP Must Stand Strong to Protect the 2A

H/T AmmoLand.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans need to be aware of Trojan Horse   Gun Control Bills being offered in the House and Senate.

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, political philosopher, and one of the founding fathers; from his letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ~ Patrick Henry, American Attorney and a Founding Father; and famous Antifederalist; quotation from “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution”

Note: the Antifederalists demanded that Man’s natural rights be codified in a Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights be formally incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists thought that a formal codification of natural rights, since preexistent in Man (both Federalists and Antifederalists took as self-evident the veracity of certain rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator) was unnecessary, as the powers of a Federal Government were to be limited; all other rights and powers retained by the States and the people. The Antifederalists feared that Government would not be held properly in check unless those serving in Government were constantly reminded of the fact that the citizenry would be armed. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights serves as that reminder—a painful thorn in the side of the Radical Left elements today that are forced to deal with it.

Circumstances of the present-day aptly demonstrate the Antifederalists concern to be acutely and eerily prescient. Fortunately for us, the Antifederalists won the day, and the Constitution was ratified with a set of the quintessential natural rights etched in stone, an integral part and the most critical part of the U.S. Constitution.

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

The Democratic Party Leadership, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, say they are willing to work with President Trump, as reported by The New York Times. Isn’t that nice! We would advise the President and Congressional Republicans to be extremely wary of the overture coming from those two.

In the article published in The New York Times on September 16, 2019, titled, “Schumer and Pelosi, Talking to Trump, Try to Sweeten the deal.” The Times reports that,

“The top two Democrats in Congress, seeking to ramp up pressure on Republicans to pass legislation extending background checks to all gun buyers, told President Trump on Sunday that they would join him at the White House for a “historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden” if he agreed to the measure.

The offer, made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, during an 11-minute phone conversation with Mr. Trump, comes as the president is considering a package of measures to respond to the mass shootings that have terrorized the nation in recent months. The three spoke only about gun legislation, according to aides.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said in a statement that the conversation was cordial but that Mr. Trump “made no commitments” on a House-passed background checks bill that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are urging him to support.

Mr. Trump “instead indicated his interest in working to find a bipartisan legislative solution on appropriate responses to the issue of mass gun violence,” Mr. Deere said.

Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer want Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to take up the bill, but the senator has refused to do so without knowing whether the president would sign it.

‘This morning, we made it clear to the president that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access,’ their statement said, adding, ‘We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the president must sign it.’

Their pressure continued a campaign on an issue that has dominated the political debate in Washington and on the Democratic presidential campaign trail since a string of mass shootings over the summer.

A White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss internal deliberations, said on Sunday that the president had instructed his advisers to continue to work to find a range of policies that would go after illegal gun sales while protecting the Second Amendment, and expand the role of mental health professionals.”

The President needs to be very, very careful suggesting to Schumer and Pelosi that he is conducive to entertaining any gun measure.

A measure that, on its face, may seem narrowly tailored to constraining the criminal or dangerous lunatic but that can, and most likely would operate as a backdoor to restricting exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, for the population at large.

He may find himself entangled in their antigun mythos. And, if so, he will find it exceedingly difficult to extricate himself from it. Left-wing extremists, of which Schumer and Pelosi must be counted among them are desirous of controlling the law-abiding gun owners’ exercise of their Second Amendment right even as they claim only to be concerned with, or suggest that they are only concerned with reducing “gun violence.” But we are talking here of a population consisting of the criminal sociopathic element or dangerous psychotic element of society. Or are we? The Democrats aren’t saying, and we’ve seen where all of this is headed, before.

We know how this plays out; as it always plays out. The Democratic Party Leadership, along with more and more radical Leftist members of the Party, all of whom are taking their cue from members of radical Left-wing Socialist and Communist groups active in this Country, lurking in the shadows, ingratiating themselves with radical Congressional Democrats, have an agenda with items to tick off. One of the items, a key item, is to whittle away at the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry is an abomination for the Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats and for those operating closely with them, orchestrating policy.

As they all abhor the Second Amendment, and they are fearful of an armed citizenry, these Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats will use every opportunity they can to constrain law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms. If they succeed, tyranny looms.

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 www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Next Week: Congress to Discuss Federal ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

H/T GunPowder Magazine.

We need to keep up the pressure on Congress to stop the planned Assault Weapons ban.

Here are the links to find your House and Senate members.

Congress is set to debate another ban on so-called “assault weapons” next week.

The Hill reported earlier this month:

Democrats also plan to hold a hearing Sept. 25 on an assault weapons ban. But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), acknowledged the legislation doesn’t yet have the votes to pass.

Cicilline’s bill to ban assault weapons currently has 211 cosponsors, which is seven short of the 218 votes needed to pass on the House floor.

Most of the Democratic holdouts on the bill hail from competitive swing districts where gun restrictions may be less popular.

“So we’re not at 218 yet, but we’re making progress,” Cicilline said.

The New York Times also reported last week:

As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation, they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban.

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats — 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage — are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens — a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups — making any such ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.

The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.

On the presidential campaign trail, Democrats like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are rallying behind an assault weapons ban, and Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from Texas, has gone so far as to call for a mandatory government program to buy back the weapons of war. But on Capitol Hill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, have barely breathed a word about reviving the ban.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban and is one of its most ardent defenders, did not raise the issue when she spoke about gun safety alongside Mr. Schumer on Tuesday afternoon. “We don’t have the votes to pass it,” she later explained.

In an op-ed The Hill published yesterday, Rep. Rosa Delauro, who represents the 3rd District of Connecticut and chairs the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, declared:

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 8, for universal background checks. It is a widely supported proposal. However, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Republican Senate refuses to even debate it.

But, we cannot stand pat. In fact, I believe we must advance another proposal: reinstating the federal assault weapons ban with a ban on high-capacity magazines.

It was only 25 years ago that the Congress adopted an assault weapons ban, for which I proudly voted. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess” a semiautomatic assault weapon.

Last week, presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke declared that as president, he would confiscate what he calls “weapons of war.”

O’Rourke said:

“… Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.”

According to The Hill:

Still, public polling shows majority support for an assault weapons ban, in addition to more widespread approval of proposals like the bills advanced by the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Tuesday found that 57 percent of respondents support banning the sale of assault weapons.

Slightly more — 61 percent — back the idea of banning high-capacity magazines, while 72 percent support allowing police or family members to request a judge temporarily take away guns from a person considered a danger to themselves or others.

A total of 83 percent support requiring background checks at gun shows and other private sales. House Democrats passed a bill earlier this year to establish universal background checks — including at gun shows and private sales — but that bill has since languished in the Senate.



‘Military Style’ Weapons Are Already Outlawed
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 earlier this year “to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines,” Feinstein’s office reported in a press release.

Feinstein, during the unveiling of her prized bill, displayed the usual amount of liberal ignorance on guns that illustrates why they have no business regulating them.

“Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Feinstein said. “If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”

Sen. Chris Murphy echoed her:

“Military-style assault rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murderers,” Murphy said. “There’s just no reason why these guns, which were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, are sold to the public.”

As knowledgeable Second Amendment supporters know, “military style” weapons are already outlawed. Guns “designed to kill as many people as possible,” i.e. automatic weapons, or machine guns, are not sold to the general public.

Feinstein and her cronies want to re-define terms in order to outlaw guns they think look scary, regardless of their internal functions.

‘It Won’t Do What They Propose’
Gun University notes some of the extremely flawed logic behind this ban:

These so-called “assault weapons” are the most popular firearm in America. Let’s assume for a second that their existence is why we have mass shootings (it’s not). If that is [the Democrats’] belief, then why would they only ban new ones and grandfather current ones? The most common rifle in America is, by far, the AR-15. This bill does nothing to address the vast majority of rifles in America.

Now don’t get me wrong… we’re VERY HAPPY that they aren’t going after current rifles. We’re just pointing out the absurdity of this ban and how it won’t do what they propose.

No Significant Impact on Mass Public Shootings, Crime
John Lott’s Crime Research Prevention Center reminded us in May 2018 that:

A large amount of research has been done on the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. It has consistently found no statistically significant impact on mass public shootings or any other type of crime.

This holds true even for research funded by the Clinton administration. Criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded in a 1997 report for the National Institute of Justice, “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”