PODCAST: Congressman Bob Barr — Democrats, Republicans Dismiss Bloomberg At Their Own Peril!

GUESTS AND TOPICS

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives from 1995-2003. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPIC: Democrats, Republicans Dismiss Bloomberg At Their Own Peril!

Tyler O’Neil, Senior Editor of PJ Media and conservative commentator. He has written for numerous publications, including The Christian Post, National Review, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Signal, AEI’s Values & Capitalism, and the Colson Center’s Breakpoint. He enjoys Indian food, board games, and talking ceaselessly about politics, religion, and culture.

TOPIC: Chick-fil-A CEO Regrets ‘Inadvertently’ Discrediting the Salvation Army!

RELATED ARTICLES:

To Keep African Americans Safe, Target Criminals, Not Police

Gun Control-Loving Dem In VA: 2A Supporters Are ‘Little Kids’ Who Are ‘Mentally Ill’

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Gives Jack Wilson a Medal for Heroically Stopping Church Shooting

Liberal Media Bias: 93% of ABC, CBS and NBC Coverage of President Trump is Negative

Bloomberg Dismisses Texas Hero, Insists It Wasn’t His “Job” to Have a Gun or Decide to Shoot

Jack Wilson – a 71-year-old congregant of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Tex. – is a hero to most Americans. When a deranged man savagely murdered two of Mr. Wilson’s fellow worshippers during a service at the church on Dec. 30, Wilson took swift action. He exposed himself to danger to deliver a single shot from his lawfully carried handgun that instantly ended what undoubtedly would have been even more terrible carnage among the hundreds present.

Other congregants were also seen producing lawfully carried handguns in response to the threat. Several closed in on the fallen assailant to ensure he was neutralized. None of them panicked or acted rashly and no errant shots were fired.

The entire episode was over in six seconds and was captured on the church’s livestream.

The evidence is inescapable and available to anyone who cares to view it. Anybody who has ever tried to justify a public policy proposal on the grounds that it could save “just one life” is now on notice that lawful concealed carry saved many lives in just that one episode.

Yet one person who did not bother to watch the video or acquaint himself with the facts is Democrat presidential contender Michael Bloomberg. Commenting on the incident at a campaign stop in Montgomery Ala., Bloomberg did not mention Jack Wilson’s name. Bloomberg did not even acknowledge that the events depicted in video and widely reported in the media – including on Bloomberg’s self-named news site – were authentic.

But if they were, he huffed, it didn’t change his mind that only the police (which apparently include the current and former officers on his own armed protection detail) should be able to carry firearms in public.

“It may true, I wasn’t there, I don’t know the facts, that somebody in the congregation had their own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people,” he said. “But it’s the job of law enforcement to, uh, have guns and to decide when to shoot.” He continued, “You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”

In the best-case scenario, responding police would still have been minutes away from the violence breaking out in the West Freeway Church of Christ. The shotgun-wielding assailant could have killed many more people in that time had he not faced armed resistance of his own.

But Bloomberg’s own words indicate he would consider that an acceptable price to pay to vindicate his arch-statist and anti-constitutional view that the government should have a complete monopoly on the lawful use of lethal force.

What, in Bloomberg’s mind, make police the only people who can be trusted with firearms?

Does he feel that only law enforcement can effectively and safely use firearms?

Jack Wilson answered that question on Dec. 29, 2019, by delivering a single, precise shot at 15 yards that felled its target and only its target, saving innocent lives.

But somehow that’s still not good enough for Michael Bloomberg because Wilson is not an active-duty police officer.

What lesson are we supposed to learn from Bloomberg’s response to the White Settlement events, other than who shoots whom isn’t as important to him as who gets to decide who lawfully wields lethal force?

Are you willing to helplessly take one for Team Bloomberg’s scheme of law and order if you end up in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Note that Michael Bloomberg isn’t taking that risk himself; his payroll includes plenty of armed men to keep him safe.

The Second Amendment is your guarantee that you need not take the risk either, which is why Michael Bloomberg’s worldview cannot be reconciled with that fundamental liberty.

This stands in stark contrast to President Trump, who understands exactly what the right to keep and bear arms is all about and unabashedly respects that right.

“It was over in 6 seconds thanks to the brave parishioners who acted to protect 242 fellow worshippers,” President Trump tweeted on Dec. 30. “Lives were saved by these heroes, and Texas laws allowing them to carry guns!”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia: General Assembly Passes Capitol Gun Ban

Crime in Virginia is Falling – Governor Focuses on Making You a Felon

Virginia Gov. Northam Wants Millions in Tax Money to Ban Guns and Jail Gun Owners!

Missouri: Gun Bills Filed for 2020 Session

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here’s What the Data Say.

Is it true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety?


From Parkland, Florida, to San Bernardino, California, the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and its variants have seemingly become the weapons of choice for mass shooters in the United States.

Many people simply cannot believe that regular civilians should be able to legally own so-called “weapons of war,” which they believe should only be in the hands of the military.

According to Pew Research, for example, 81 percent of Democrats and even 50 percent of Republicans believe the federal government should ban “assault-style rifles” like the AR-15. Given the massive amount of carnage AR-15s and similar rifles have caused, it makes sense that the civilian population simply cannot be trusted to own such weapons, right?

Perhaps, but is it really true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety, so dangerous that it deserves to be banned or even confiscated by the federal government?

It cannot be emphasized enough that any homicide is a tragedy, but in order to get a sense of how dangerous to public safety “assault-style” rifles are, it’s useful to compare their usage in homicide to other methods.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are the two authoritative sources for homicide statistics in the United States.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the CDC reports “produce more accurate homicide trends at the national level” because they capture less under-reporting than the FBI statistics.

However, the homicide data recorded by the CDC includes all homicides committed by civilians regardless of criminal intent. The FBI data instead focuses on intentional homicides (i.e murder) known to law enforcement and excludes non-negligent homicide (i.e manslaughter.)

According to the BJS, the FBI data is “better suited for understanding the circumstances surrounding homicide incidents.” This is especially true given that the FBI, but not the CDC, records the type of firearm used in a given homicide. For the purposes of this analysis, the data from the FBI will be used.

There are two further limitations of FBI data worth noting.

Firstly, the FBI reports do not look at “assault-style” rifles specifically, but rather, murders involving all types of rifles, whether they are committed with an AR-15 or a hunting rifle.

Secondly, each year there are a few thousand homicide cases where the type of firearm used goes unreported to the FBI. This means that some murders listed under “unknown firearm” may, in fact, be rifle murders.

To account for this under-reporting, we will extrapolate from rifles’ share of firearm murders where the type of weapon is known in order to estimate the number of “unknown” firearms that were in actuality rifle homicides.

If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.

Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle.

Figure 1. The Relative and Absolute Frequency of Rifle Homicides 2007-2017

Figure 2. Homicides per year by weapon 2007 – 2017

In any given year, for every person murdered with a rifle, there are 15 murdered with handguns, 1.7 with hands or fists, and 1.2 with blunt instruments. In fact, homicides with any sort of rifle represent a mere 3.2 percent of all homicides on average over the past decade.

Given that the FBI statistics pertain to all rifles, the homicide frequency of “assault-style” rifles like the AR-15 is necessarily lesser still, as such firearms compose a fraction of all the rifles used in crime.

According to a New York Times analysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”

That’s 173 over a span of a decade, with an average of 17 homicides per year. To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.

With an average of 13,657 homicides per year during the 2007-2017 timeframe, about one-tenth of one percent of homicides were produced by mass shootings involving AR-15s.

Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.

Image courtesy of Gun Holsters and Gear.

COLUMN BY

Being Classically Liberal

Follow Being Classically Liberal on Facebook.

RELATED ARTICLE: Abortion again tops worldwide causes of death in 2019 at more than 42 million

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Massive pro 2nd amendment demo planned for January 20, 2020, in Virginia

Posted by Eeyore

MASSIVE MILITIA MOVEMENT!! 2ND AMENDMENT RALLY VIRGINIA!! PLEASE BE PREPARED! (Warning 1/20/2020)

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Fairfax County Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County Speech — Civil War

25 Companies Cave to Anti-2nd Amendment Extremists — Scorepages Updated

Candidate for Los Angeles County Sheriff Supports 2nd Amendment, wants politics out of law enforcement

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Media Disappointed To Learn Armed Citizen Stopped Mass Shooting

U.S.—The nation’s media outlets announced they were grieving today as an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting.

“We grieve that this tragedy we could have exploited for weeks on end was stopped by a good guy with a gun,” said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter on the scene. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the shooter.”

“We are absolutely heartbroken and in shock over here,” said one New York Times journalist. “What could have given us weeks and weeks of frothing-at-the-mouth stories about gun control will now have to be suppressed since it does not align with our agenda.”

News outlets also reminded the nation that they reserve the right to immediately bury mass shooting stories that don’t help push their agenda.

Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC News confirmed that they carefully look over the facts of a given case to see if it lines up with the correct opinions before deciding to push it incessantly for weeks on end.

“While we usually would exploit a tragedy like this to push our gun control agenda, in this case, the facts don’t really help us,” said CNN reporter Bob Costanza, after a recent shooting was shut down by a citizen with a gun. “It’s tragic that it ended that way, because we really could have gotten a lot of mileage out of that bad boy.”

The media didn’t even try to find children who were present during the shooting to parade around talk shows and put on the covers of magazines for a full year this time around.

RELATED SATIRE:

Supreme Court OKs Death Penalty For Commenting On Articles Without Reading Them

Ford Introduces 40-Passenger Van: ‘The Homeschooler’

First Baptist Dallas Members Melt Golden Jewelry Down Into Towering Donald Trump Statue

Follower Of Joseph Smith Urges Nation To Reject Morally Flawed Leaders

Follower Of Joseph Smith Urges Nation To Reject Morally Flawed Leaders


Readers of the Bee,

If you value The Babylon Bee and want to see us prevail against Snopes and anyone else who might seek to discredit or deplatform us, please consider becoming a subscriber. Your support really will make a difference.

Support Us                 Learn More


EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Virginia Gov. Northam Wants to Ban Your Guns AND Make You Pay for It!

As if Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s wholesale attack on law-abiding gun owners wasn’t enough, the disgraced public official and his Michael Bloomberg-bought allies in the General Assembly now want the state’s hard-working taxpayers to foot the bill for their unconstitutional schemes. The budget bill (HB30) includes an appropriation of a quarter million dollars to carry out a host of gun control measures that Northam and his anti-gun allies hope to enact.

The $250,000 is appropriated to the Corrections Special Reserve Fund in order to provide for the “increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment” of Northam’s gun control measures. Among the enumerated laws that this allocation is meant to fund is a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, the criminalization of private firearms transfers, and gun confiscation orders issued without due process.

Aside from the insult of forcing law-abiding Virginia taxpayers to pay for the diminution of their rights, the gun control allocation is a severe waste of resources. Northam’s Bloomberg-backed gun control measures will not make Virginia safer.

In additional to being unconstitutional, a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms will not reduce violent crime.

Long guns of any description are rarely used in violent crime. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data breaks down homicides by weapon type. In 2018, the FBI reported that there were five times as many individuals listed as killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also showed that rifles were listed as being used in less homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”

A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study came to a similar conclusion. The study determined that “AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban,” “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

So-called “universal” background checks do not stop criminals from obtaining firearms.

Background checks don’t stop criminals from stealing firearms, getting them on the black market, or getting them from straw purchasers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 75 percent of criminals in state and federal state prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers.”

This year, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”

Aside from enabling the unacceptable deprivation of constitutional rights without due process, an Extreme Risk Protection Order (Red Flag) law is unnecessary in Virginia because the state already has strong and effective civil commitment laws.

Under Virginia law, a law enforcement officer may take an individual into emergency custody for a mental health evaluation without prior court approval. A person detained in this manner is then evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria for a temporary detention. A person that was subject to a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission to a mental health facility is prohibited from possessing firearms until their rights are restored by a court.

Tax-paying Virginians should not have to foot the bill for Northam and Bloomberg’s radical attack on their fundamental rights. Please contact Gov. Northam and let him know you oppose his unconstitutional gun control measures. You can contact Northam using the Governor’s Office contact form below or call his office at 804-786-2211​.

Stay tuned to www.nraila.org for updates. And, in the meantime, please sign up to volunteer to help defeat Northam and Bloomberg’s gun control legislation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bloomberg Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

Virginia Gov. Northam Seeks Gun Registration as Down Payment on Gun Confiscation

Puerto Rico Enacts Pro-gun Overhaul of Firearms Laws

Defend Freedom – Join Us January 13th

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Fairfax County Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County Speech — Civil War

Posted by Eeyore

Thank you Richard.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

11 More Examples of How Firearms Save Gun Owners’ Lives, Property

At a time when some gun control advocates appear intent on painting lawful gun ownership as a danger to society, and the Second Amendment as little more than an outdated protection of a person’s right to hunt, it’s important to remember the regular role armed citizens play in defending inalienable rights.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention affirmed in a 2013 report, almost all major studies on defensive gun uses have concluded that Americans use firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year.

The vast majority of them will receive little or no media attention.

Every month this year, we have highlighted just some of the many times law-abiding citizens used their firearms to defend themselves or others. (You can read past articles here: JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptember, and October). Unsurprisingly, November was also replete with similar stories of Americans using guns to save lives and livelihoods.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


  • Nov. 2, Everett, Washington: concealed-carry permit holder intervened to stop a mentally disturbed man who was endangering drivers by throwing chunks of concrete and metal pipes at cars passing by on the interstate. The man had damaged almost a dozen cars and was holding a large piece of metal when the permit holder drew his handgun and detained the man until police could arrive. One of the drivers whose car was damaged told reporters that she was thankful the permit holder saved her and other drivers from further harm.
  • Nov. 5, Genesee County, New York: A 76-year-old man used his shotgun to fend off an armed home intruder, potentially saving both his life and the life of his wife. The man responded to a knock on his door during the night, only to have the intruder force his way inside at gunpoint and tell the couple to give him all their money or else he would kill them. The intruder then ordered the couple to go into the basement, where the man thought the intruder was going to kill them. Instead, the man was able to grab his loaded shotgun and shoot the intruder in the hip, then held him at gunpoint for 15 minutes until police could arrive.
  • Nov. 7, Glen Burnie, Maryland: A man was feeding chickens in his yard when his bulldog began frantically barking, and he heard commotion from inside his home. He walked inside to find two acquaintances had broken in and, armed with a gun and a knife, were assaulting his girlfriend. The man grabbed an antique shotgun that he kept loaded “in case anything ever happens,” and fired at the attackers, injuring one and causing the other to run away. The man told reporters: “They could have shot and killed both of us, and then what? The guys could have got away scot-free. But no, I am an American. I’m going to have my gun, and I’m going to shoot [intruders] when they enter my house.”
  • Nov. 10, Atascocita, Texas: A group of four masked would-be robbers charged into a jewelry store and began using hammers to smash into glass cases and grab expensive items. The storeowner saw the thieves from behind the one-way mirror in his office, grabbed his gun, and fired several rounds that wounded two thieves and sent all of them running. The four thieves were later arrested by law enforcement, and all of the stolen items were recovered.
  • Nov. 14, Port Charlotte, Florida: disabled New York City firefighter recovering from serious injuries relied on his handgun for protection against a masked woman who broke into his home and assaulted him. The firefighter, suffering from a herniated disc in his back and a broken pelvis, warned the woman he was armed, but she punched his jaw and throat, and attempted to gouge his eyes. As the struggle continued, he feared he would be overpowered and shot the woman once in the stomach, causing her to flee the scene. She was subsequently arrested.
  • Nov. 17, Burlington, North Carolina: A homeowner used his shotgun to defend himself against an ax-wielding man who tried to break into his home through a back door. The homeowner did not need to fire his weapon, as the would-be intruder fled the moment he saw there would be an armed confrontation. Police later arrested the intruder and charged him with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony.
  • Nov. 21, Benton Harbor, Michigan: Two armed intruders broke into an apartment and ordered the occupants—including three children—to “get down.” The apartment renter heard the commotion from a separate room, grabbed his rifle, and shot at the intruders, killing one and sending the other fleeing. No one else in the apartment was harmed during the home invasion.
  • Nov. 25, Miami: When a man armed with an AK-47 attempted to rob a 60-year-old concealed-carry permit holder who was in his van, his son, and girlfriend, the permit holder drew his handgun and killed the would-be robber. The permit holder, who told reporters he is originally from Jamaica and a member of the National Rifle Association, said, “I am going to defend my life and those I love. My family is innocent, and just don’t put an AK-47 in my face. I will not allow that to happen.”
  • Nov. 27, Tulsa, Oklahoma: A man high on the drug PCP began stabbing his friend with a knife after the friend declined to give the man a ride. The friend, in fear for his life, pulled out his firearm and shot the man, who ultimately died from his wounds. The friend suffered serious injuries, but survived. Tulsa police said they think the shooting was justified.
  • Nov. 28, McCleary, Washington: A woman shot and killed her estranged husband after he broke into her house and attacked her and a friend with a knife. The woman already had a domestic violence protection order issued against the husband. In a statement to a local news station, she explained, “If it’s your life or theirs, you have to do what you have to do.”
  • Nov. 30, Ellenwood, Georgia: A deliveryman was unloading an order of bread at a Hardee’s fast-food restaurant when he saw several employees run out of the store in a panic, screaming for help. They told him that an armed robber had entered the store and was demanding cash while threatening other employees with a gun. The deliveryman grabbed his firearm from his truck and ran into the store. A gunbattle ensued, and the robber, who was shot several times, fled the scene. The wounded robber was later arrested. The local sheriff’s department named the deliveryman an honorary deputy and inducted him into its Posse Hall of Fame.

These types of defensive gun uses are not rare or anomalies, but common occurrences that make a meaningful difference in the lives of ordinary Americans.

When policymakers consider enacting laws that significantly restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, the people most affected are not the criminals who largely obtain firearms from the black market and who won’t be deterred by one more law telling them to “behave.”

No, the people most affected are those who, like the Americans noted above, are ready and willing to defend themselves and others from criminals. We must continue to ensure that they are able to do so.

COMMENTARY BY

Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Cooper Conway is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE: Consumer Group Calls On Hasbro To Stop Selling “Assault Style” Nerf Guns


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

No Gov. Northam, Your Gun Ban is NOT Constitutional

As Virginia gun owners have shown their displeasure with Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s proposed attack on their rights in city and county meetings across the Old Dominion, Northam has been forced to answer questions about he and gun control financier Michael Bloomberg’s gun ban agenda. In doing so, the governor has proclaimed that he supports the Second Amendment and that his gun ban does not violate the U.S. Constitution. In truth, Northam’s proposed gun ban would violate the Second Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

On Monday, Northam told reporters, “I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment,” adding, “I hear people out there saying that they don’t want law enforcement to enforce unconstitutional laws. Well we’re not going to propose or pass any unconstitutional laws.”

In a Wednesday meeting with reporters, Northam offered a veiled threat to sanctuary jurisdictions that have promised to not enforce unconstitutional gun laws stating, “If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books then there are going to be some consequences…” The governor went on to say “Any law that we pass in Richmond and the 8 pieces of legislation that I put on the table back in July – they’re constitutional, so that’s not going to be an issue.”

Northam’s allies in Richmond have proposed firearm confiscation legislation that would prohibit the sale and possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15. The governor has stated that he intends to push legislation that would ban such firearms but grandfather possession by gun owners who register their firearms with the government.

Banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms under either proposal is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments cannot ban these firearms as they are “in common use” for lawful purposes.

Taken alone, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller is enough to dispose of Northam’s comments. In the decision, Justice Scalia made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”

The firearms industry has estimated that Americans own more than 17.5 million semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and therefore indisputably “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment.

Further, in the 1994 case Staples v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that semi-automatic rifles were common. The case concerned the criminal intent requirement for a conviction for possession of an unregistered machine gun. The subject of the case had argued that he was unaware that the AR-15 in his possession had been modified for automatic fire and was not simply a legal semi-automatic AR-15. In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made clear that the mere possession of a converted AR-15 is not enough to infer intent sufficient for conviction, as some firearms are “so commonplace and generally available that we would not consider them to alert individuals to the likelihood of strict regulation.” Justice Thomas went on to write that most categories of guns, including semi-automatic rifles, “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions.”

All doubt as to whether the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald preclude bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was settled in 2015. That year, Justice Scalia joined Justice Thomas in a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

Justice Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Northam’s attempt to portray his Bloomberg-sponsored gun ban as constitutional is an absurd and transparent attempt to forestall the surging Virginia grassroots gun rights movement. Virginia’s gun owners have every reason to take defensive action against Northam and Bloomberg’s unconstitutional gun control agenda.

All Virginia gun owners must organize to fight against unconstitutional Bloomberg-backed gun control in the Old Dominion. Please contact Gov. Northam and let him know you oppose his unconstitutional gun control measures. You can contact Northam using the Governor’s Office contact form below or call his office at 804-786-2211​.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia Gov. Northam Seeks Gun Registration as Down Payment on Gun Confiscation

Bloomberg Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

First Amendment Defends the Second

Pro-Gun Bill Introduced to Protect Lawful Gun Carriers from Federal-State Legal Trap

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Does Crime Go up or down When Guns are More Controlled?

Following the shooting on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, the pandemonium regarding gun control seems to be on the increase. Also, the increasing uproar is being directed to the Second Amendment. From every part of the country, citizens are exercising strong opinions on gun rights, the possibility of a gun control policy and what its impact would be.

Many Citizens Still Advocate for Gun Ownership Rights

The argument for and against gun control is quite heated. While a lot of people are clamoring for gun control in the United States, many citizens still maintain their stand and support on the need for a well-armed citizen. According to these people who advocate gun ownership rights, “well-armed citizenry is valuable in keeping all individuals and the entire country better protected and safer at all times.”

The media has also witnessed an increase in gun violence topics, especially after the mass shooting and other serious gun-related crimes that followed. Obviously, the topics on gun violence are discussed side by side gun control policy in America. Particularly, the gun control topic has provoked an outcry from many US citizens and even concerned individuals from other parts of the world who are bent on their rights to defend and protect themselves as well as the people around them.

In the heat of these arguments, some of which are live discussions with the United States’ president himself, one argument stands out: It is the argument about preventing gun control in the Second Amendment particularly and the United States Constitution as a whole. The argument in favor of not restricting gun ownership rights seems to be gaining the upper hand as the citizens involved are presenting strong reasons to have their own weapons as directed by the 2nd  Amendment.

According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being essential to the security of a free State, the right of the citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So, those who are opposing the proposal to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms are strongly pointing to this portion of the second amendment. They strongly advocate for the right to purchase a handgun of their choice – one you can conceal easily in your pocket and use for self-defense when the need arises.

The Argument in Favor of Gun Control

Those clamoring for gun control are also presenting their strong points. Some of those strong points are based on the record of violent crimes accomplished with various gun types and weapons.

One such records are the one curled from the FBI program data; according to the data, throughout the country, the use of firearms for violent crimes was more than any other weapon. The data revealed that approximately 72% of all murder cases and manslaughter were committed with firearms.

In addition, those in favor of gun control are of the opinion that;

  • Increased guns in circulation will lead to increased violent crime
  • Making it difficult for criminals to access guns prevent violent crime
  • Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide or being killed by others

Supporters of Gun Ownership Rights Insist Gun Control is not an Answer to Crime Reduction

Despite the strong reasons and statistics presented by those who support gun control, people who are clamoring for the sustenance of gun ownership rights insist that the nation won’t reduce crime by restricting ownership and use of guns by individuals.

According to NRA (National Rifle Association), those who think that gun control is the answer to crime reduction should ponder on the following;

  • People kill, and not guns. Therefore, violent crimes will decrease if more people use guns to defend and protect themselves.
  • The Brady Bill is an example of waiting period laws that should precede a police state
  • Since they are contrary to the 2nd Amendment, gun control laws do not conform to the constitution. According to the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.”
  • In fact, crime rate reduction is not contingent on gun control.

Instead, the government and those concerned should focus on more viable alternatives – people who engage firearms to commit crimes should be subjected to mandatory sentences. This is the solution to increased crime reduction rate – it will yield better results than gun control laws.”

Now, back to the Major Question – Does Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime or Not?

The major question here is whether or not crime goes up or down with gun control. So far, bans on handguns have not met desired expectation in terms of significant impact on crime rates, including murder. Besides, prior to the ban, the amount of handguns out there is huge.

All the efforts to beat the importation and manufacture of handguns with laws have not produced the envisaged result. Why? Such laws end up promoting the existence of the black market for guns.

Laws that attempt to prevent juveniles, criminals and mentally ill people from accessing handguns have not succeeded in accomplishing crime reduction. This is because many of these people already possess guns or would find a way to own one illegally.

A More Viable Solution?

Experts suggest proactive arrests by officers of the law. Particularly, police officers should engage field interrogations and traffic enforcement while on patrol to make proactive arrests in gun-crime spots – and should take away guns from criminals right there and then. A typical example is what happened during the mid-90s in Kansas City; Proactive arrests made by police on crime spots for concealed weapons carry was able to cut back crimes substantially in this city.

In conclusion, it would also be helpful to take a cue from John Lott’s book titled “More Guns, Less Crime“. According to the book, “the rates of violent crime reduce when state pass “shall issue” concealed carry laws.”

In this book, More Guns Less Crime, Lott presents the outcome of the analysis he carried out on crime data involving every county. The analysis covered 29 years period – 1997 to 2005. The University of Chicago Press refereed the different editions of the book.

Michael Bloomberg’s Ready-Made Network of Cities in Support of His Open Borders Agenda

In 2010, the forward-thinking mayor of New York created the National Partnership for a New American Economy.  I say forward-thinking because now 9 years later, he has what amounts to a local government network of cities that favor more immigration as he launches his bid to defeat Donald Trump in 2020.

He and his cohorts have been awarding prizes, including grants and cataloging cities by their willingness to welcome an ever increasing number of immigrants with his special desire to legalize more of the illegals.

Co-Chairs of the Partnership for a New American Economy
Name Affiliation
Mark Hurd Co-CEO Oracle
Robert Iger Chairman and CEO, Walt Disney Co.
J.W. Marriott, Jr. Chairman and CEO of Marriott International, Inc.
Jim McNerney Chairman of Boeing
Rupert Murdoch Chairman, CEO and Founder of News Corporation
Julián Castro Former Mayor of San Antonio
Michael Bloomberg Former Mayor of New York City
Michael Nutter Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Antonio Villaraigosa Former Mayor of Los Angeles

Really what you see here is a list of (bipartisan) corporations that say they can’t live without immigrant laborers.

In between your turkey and stuffing and parade watching, take a look at the extensive website and operation Bloomberg has put in place.

I don’t see anything like this kind of organization anywhere in the immigration control movement.  Well, maybe NumbersUSA could come close on the other side of the argument about workers.

It really is a no-brainer, too many foreign workers depress wages of Americans including African Americans, but for moneybags like Bloomberg there is no such thing as too many low skilled and low wage immigrants!

Here, earlier this month, Bloomberg’s gang is chortling about bringing Midwestern cities into the light of their understanding.

New ranking of top 100 cities shows Midwestern cities are becoming more welcoming to immigrants. (You can read it yourself).

And, since we are talking about mayors and city leaders falling in line, don’t miss RRW today and see if your mayor is one of 88 telling the President that they want 100,000 refugees and want the feds (with their taxpayer funded contractors) to continue to decide which lucky cities will welcome the stranger.

RELATED ARTICLE: ICE Catches Alleged Child Sexual Predator Repeatedly Released by Philadelphia Police

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Bloomberg Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

Michael Bloomberg’s bought and paid for Virginia legislators have wasted no time introducing legislation that would make the Old Dominion’s gun laws worse than those of the billionaire’s home state of New York.

SB 16, introduced by Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, would create a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, like the AR-15. Even worse, the ban would even extend to common firearm parts. The restrictions included in the proposed legislation does not grandfather current owners. The legislation is clearly designed to be firearms confiscation, as current owners would be forced to dispossess themselves of their property or face a felony conviction.

Saslaw’s legislation provides,

It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport an assault firearm.

Otherwise law-abiding gun owners found in possession of an “assault firearm,” even one they purchased prior to the ban, could be convicted of a Class 6 felony. A Class 6 felony is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.

The legislation lays out several criteria by which a firearm would be defined as an “assault firearm.” This includes,

  • A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
  • A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel… or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii)

  • A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.
  • A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel… or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii);

  • A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  • A semi-automatic shotgun with one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun, (iv) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, (v) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds, or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v).

With this definition, SB 16 would outlaw America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15, along with countless other rifles, pistols, and shotguns that Virginians use for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.

A knowledgeable firearms owner will take a look at the ridiculous definition and realize that such ham-handed legislation must be born out of petty vindictiveness or a complete ignorance of firearm technology, as there is no logical public safety rationale.

For example, the legislation is so broad that it would ban hunting guns like the Mossberg 935 Turkey shotgun for its “pistol grip.”

The ban would prohibit the possession of guns like this Model SP-10 Magnum Thumbhole Camo due to its thumbhole stock.

The ban would also capture guns such as this version of the Browning BAR Mark II Safari hunting rifle, as it has a detachable box magazine and a muzzle brake.

Moreover, the “any characteristic of like kind” language that appears after each list of prohibited features introduces an unacceptable vagueness into the definition of what does or does not constitute an “assault firearm.” Law-abiding gun owners would be forced to prophesy just how a court might interpret those unclear provisions.

As bad and senseless as the prohibition on certain firearms is, the proposed ban on firearm parts truly shows how Michael Bloomberg is cashing in on his political investment.

The legislation provides,

“Assault firearm” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm.

This passage would appear to make all of the firearm parts listed under the various feature tests in and of themselves “assault firearms” and therefore prohibited. As the individual part is treated as an “assault firearm,” possession of such a part would be punishable in the same manner as a prohibited firearm, as a Class 6 felony.

Many firearms are modular. For instance, the same muzzle brake or flash suppressor could be used to turn a semi-automatic firearm into an “assault firearm” under the bill’s definition, or it could be used by a hunter or precision rifle shooter on their bolt-action rifle.

In recent years the popularity of the AR-15 platform has led to the adoption of AR-15 parts in other types of firearms. An example of this trend is the Ruger Precision Rimfire rifle. The firearm is a bolt-action rimfire rifle that accepts an AR-15 pistol grip. As the pistol grip part is a prohibited feature on a semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is designed for use on a prohibited AR-15, the mere grip itself could be banned under this legislation.

SB 16 also bans the importation, sale, and transfer of standard capacity firearm magazines that are designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Many handguns commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for concealed carry come standard with magazines that would be banned. Otherwise law-abiding gun owners who violate the magazine provision could be found guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail.

All Virginia gun owners must organize to fight against Bloomberg-backed gun confiscation in the Old Dominion. In the coming days NRA will keep gun owners apprised of the latest developments in Richmond and the actions necessary to defend the right to keep and bear arms. In the meantime, please sign up to volunteer to help defeat this and other terrible legislation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sheriffs Group Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down New York City Gun Rules

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

Gun Confiscation: The Exit-Strategy for Failing Campaigns?

Professor Elizabeth Warren Offers Class in Political Linguistics

Member Spotlight: Meet an NRA Virginia mom who is telling voters to ‘watch out’ for Bloomberg’s tricks in 2020

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Sanders Burns the 2020 Democratic Primary Gun Control Agenda

As anti-gun as the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have exposed themselves to be, much of the field still gives lip-service to the Second Amendment and the Constitution. Take for instance Joe Biden. The leading candidate’s campaign has said that Biden will seek to “respect the Second Amendment” and that “as president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.” However, take a critical look at the vast majority of the Democratic field for any limiting principle that would preclude even the most severe forms of gun control (like gun confiscation) and you will come up wanting.

To his credit, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has once again injected some much-needed sanity into a Democratic presidential primary. Speaking at a November 10 campaign rally in Charles City, Iowa, the candidate was asked about his opinion on a “mandatory buyback” (properly understood as confiscation) of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s. Sanders responded by stating, “I don’t support, a mandatory buyback is essentially confiscation, which I think is unconstitutional.” The senator went on to add, “It means that I am going to walk into your house and take something whether you like it or not. I don’t think that stands up to constitutional scrutiny.”

Unfortunately, Sanders’s moment of lucidity was brief. The candidate went on to express his support for the criminalization of private firearms transfers and a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

The senator also provided unwitting attendees with a misimpression of current law by suggesting an individual could “buy a dozen guns legally” and sell them to criminals without facing legal repercussions. Of course, 18 U.S.C. 922(d) makes it unlawful for “any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is prohibited from possessing firearms. A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

However wrong Sanders might be about a slew of gun control measures, he is right about the confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protected ownership of the type of firearms “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that there are more than 16 million commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms possessed by law-abiding Americans. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, and therefore is in “common use.” Gun control advocates seem to agree that such semi-automatic rifles are common, considering they routinely complain about the “proliferation” of these firearms.

Heller opinion author Justice Antonin Scalia later reiterated the fact that the decision precluded bans on commonly-owned semi-automatics when he signed onto a dissent from denial of certiorari in the case of Friedman v. Highland Park. The dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, couldn’t have been clearer:

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Further, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted during his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. Supreme Court precedent required gun control measures to be scrutinized in the context of the Second Amendment’s “text, history, and tradition.” A confiscation effort the likes of which has been backed by several of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has no validity when examined under this framework.

This wasn’t the first time Sanders has brought a measure of reason to a Democratic presidential primary. During a 2016 Democratic primary debate, Sanders was challenged on his vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits resulting from a third party’s criminal misuse of a firearm. The act codified long-standing principles of tort law.

During the debate, Sanders stated,

Well, this is what I say, if I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong. If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree…. what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.

According to USA Today, the Senator later told reporters that permitting frivolous suits against the gun industry could result in “shutting down the entire industry.” Sanders added, “If Secretary Clinton’s position is that there should not be any more guns in America, fine… She should be honest and say that, because that is really what that means.”

Sanders is not a champion of gun rights. The senator merely appears to understand that there is some limit to the government’s power to trample upon the Constitutional rights of the American people. The fact that his comment stands out in the 2020 Democratic race is more a testament to his deranged opponents than his love of liberty. It’s a bizarre season when the “Democratic Socialist” is the most centrist Democratic presidential candidate on guns.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Joe Biden and His Gift for Gaffes

No Protection for the Law that Protects the Firearm Industry: Supreme Court Passes on PLCAA Case

Trading Freedom for Safety

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

A New Candidate for Confiscator-in-Chief

Former Texas Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke abandoned his run for President last week, once again leaving a void for the most strident anti-gun candidate seeking the Democrat nomination. Even before declaring his candidacy for President, California Representative Eric Swalwell raised the specter of banning AR-15s and similar firearms, forcing Americans to turn them in through a confiscation scheme mislabeled as a “mandatory buyback,” then “go[ing] after” resisters. He even famously “joked” about using nukes to enforce his scheme.

After Swalwell became the first candidate to bow out of the race when he failed to generate any noticeable poll numbers, O’Rourke stepped up to push the confiscation message.

Clearly, every Democrat that wants to run against Trump is anti-gun. The main difference among them, when it comes to semi-automatics, seems to be whether they want to ban their future production, ban them completely and confiscate them, or ban their future production and register those currently owned (presumably to make future confiscation easier).

Candidate O’Rourke staked out his strident position during the third Democrat Debate when he infamously declared, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” The former Congressman even seemed to double-down on his ban and confiscate scheme. He said during the fourth debate that if a gun owner doesn’t turn in a lawfully acquired firearm, “…then that weapon will be taken from them,” as well as suggesting they may face “other consequences from law enforcement.” He also told Joe Scarborough during an interview the day after the fourth debate that if someone did not turn over a banned semi-auto, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.”

Last week, an Iowa high school student confronted O’Rourke about his plan to ban AR-15s, the rifle the teen uses for hunting deer. The candidate feigned ignorance over the notion that people use the rifle for hunting deer, even though it is commonly used for taking such game.

Later in the week, at an event in Newtown, Conn., that was closed to the public and organized by groups promoting gun control, O’Rourke was again confronted. This time, a Newtown resident accused the candidate of trying to exploit the tragedy her town experienced to promote his anti-gun agenda.

O’Rourke must have finally seen the writing on the wall. He faced harsh criticism over his anti-gun extremism, even in what he may have thought would be “friendly” environments. He burned through an estimated $14 million in campaign funds, while poll after poll saw him stagnating in the low-to-mid single digits. And don’t forget he spent around $80 million last year to lose his U.S. Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz.

If he could not win a statewide race with that kind of money, what hope did he have of winning a national election?

Last Friday, the Texan answered that question when he pulled the plug on his latest campaign. But with O’Rourke now out of the race, will any Democrat candidate don the mantle of wannabe Confiscator in Chief?

On Monday’s episode of The View, while the cast was doing a postmortem on O’Rourke’s failed campaign, host Joy Behar chastised the former Texas Representative for revealing exactly what NRA has been saying for years is the ultimate goal of anti-gun extremists.

Perhaps as a warning to the remaining Democrat candidates, Behar stated, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”

For a party that claims to support transparency, it seems odd to hear a Democrat like Behar offer such advice. Perhaps more concerning, however, would be to consider what else Democrat candidates for President might have in store for law-abiding gun owners that they do not want to publicly reveal until after next year’s election.

Of course, it is likely Behar’s advice will be followed. The top three candidates seeking the Democrat nomination seem to be set at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been showing signs of gaining some traction. All have rejected O’Rourke’s call for confiscation, at least openly, and at least for now.

But, with multiple sources now reporting that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is once again considering throwing his name into the already crowded Democrat field, it’s likely that anti-gun extremists won’t have to wait long for a new champion of confiscation. After all, he’ll be the only candidate who can tout his experience as a firearm confiscator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Hampshire: Firearm Seizure Bill Headed to House Floor

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Apparatus Lies to Virginia’s Firearm Owners in Election Mailing

Strong Firearms Preemption Laws are More Important Than Ever

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Firearm Suppressors: 5 Reasons To Get One

I have to admit: Being slapped with a $200 tax stamp and a couple months wait-time to get a suppressor sucks ass (pardon my language). However, it’s worth it.

It’ll upgrade your shooting game to whole another level — just like if you were to upgrade a standard AR-10 rifle with the best AR-10 optic on the market.

The question is: Why should I use a suppressor? Well, you’re in for a treat because today I’m going to give you five reasons why you should shoot suppressed.

Let’s dive right in.

Reduces Hearing Damage

A helicopter flying at 500 feet. A police siren zapping right past you. A rock concert playing at full blast. A jackhammer piercing through a boulder. A jet taking off at full blast. What do all of these things have in common?

They’re quieter than the sound of a gun being fired. Seriously. For example, firing the most popular rifle in America — the AR-15 — is about 165 decibels (dB) whereas a jet’s engine is approximately 130 dB. The problem?

Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage your hearing, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). And get this: most firearms produce noise that is over 140 dB. For example, a small .22 caliber firearm can produce noise around 140 decibels (dB); a .223 Remington rifle 155 dB; .44 Magnum revolver 164 dB. You get the idea — unsuppressed firearms are dangerously loud.

The solution?

Use a suppressor (and wear appropriate hearing protective devices). Here’s why: Suppressors significantly reduce the sound level of supersonic firearms by 15 to 45 decibels, depending on the setup. How?

By redirecting the flow of high-pressurized gases through a system of chambers and baffles to slow and cool down the pressure. So if you equip an AR-15 with a suppressor, it could reduce the firing sound by 30 to 35 dB. As a result, the AR-15’s firing sound will turn from a deafening 165 dB gunshot into a quieter 135 dB gunshot.

That’s below the dangerous hearing threshold (140 dB). And that’s exactly why you should use a suppressor, especially on home defense firearms like the AR-15. But suppressors don’t only reduce the sound of the shot at the muzzle. It also…

Reduces Recoil

Let me ask you this:

Why do most people shoot a .223 Remington better than a .338 Winchester Magnum? Because it has lighter recoil. And guess what? Suppressors reduce recoil.

I could go into the full technical explanation of how suppressors reduce recoil through countering the gas pressure. But that shouldn’t be needed. All you need to know is that suppressors lessen the kick of a firearm.

Some recommend using a muzzle brake to reduce recoil. And you should use one if your sole intent is to reduce recoil. However, muzzle brakes dramatically increase muzzle blast. Suppressors don’t. Which brings me to my next point…

Reduces Muzzle Flash

Muzzle flash is the visible light of a muzzle blast.

The problem? Muzzle flash can temporarily blind the shooter or give away the shooter’s position — especially in low-light conditions. In addition, the flash signature could ruin night vision, obscure the sights, and make follow-up shots more difficult.

Now, you could use a flash hider which eliminates muzzle flash. Or, you could use a suppressor, which does the same thing: eliminate muzzle flash and prevent “blooming” of night vision equipment.

With those three ancillary advantages — noise reduction, recoil reduction, and flash suppression — you’ll begin to notice that a suppressor…

Enhances Accuracy

Unless the suppressor is improperly installed or mounted, suppressors do enhance accuracy.

Although some suppressors change the point of impact (POI), it’ll be by a very small amount. And despite the change in POI, it’s consistent with the pair. Stack that with less muzzle rise, less concussive effect, and less noise, and you’ll be left with nothing less than enhanced accuracy.

As a result, you’ll be happier with your shots. You’ll also have…

Happier Neighbors

“Happy Neighbor, Happy Life.”

I totally made that quote up. But I just want to make a point:

If you reduce the sound level of a gunshot (by using a suppressor), your neighbors will be happier. And since your neighbors aren’t filing noise complaints, you’ll be happier since you’ll be able to shoot more.

 

This also applies to shooters at gun ranges. People that live around a gun range simply don’t want to hear loud firework sounds go off every day. So, they’ll file a noise complaint and (sometimes) a petition to shut down the range. And in some cases, they actually win.

That’s why firearms equipped with suppressors will make everyone happy, including neighbors and shooters alike. So if you’re interested in buying a suppressor, here are the…

Requirements to Legally Purchase a Suppressor

  • Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a suppressor from a dealer;
  • Be at least 18 years of age to purchase a suppressor from an individual on a Form 4 to Form 4 transfer (contingent on state laws);
  • Be at least 18 years of age to possess a suppressor as a beneficiary of a trust or as a member of a corporation (contingent on state laws);
  • Be a resident of the United States;
  • Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm;
  • Pass a BATFE background check with a processing time of four to ten months;
  • Pay a $200 transfer tax; and
  • Reside in one of the 42 states that currently allows civilian ownership of suppressors.

If you pass all the requirements, you’ll need to find an authorized dealer near you. The dealer will help you fill out a Form 4. You’ll be sending this form to ATF along with the following:

  • ATF Form 4 (duplicate)
  • FBI Form FD-258s in black ink
  • $200 Check to BATFE-NFA
  • Passport Photos
  • ATF Form 5320.23 (if using a trust)

Alternatively, you can do this all online by following Silencer’s Shop guide on how to buy a silencer. That said…

Will You Use a Suppressor?

I absolutely love using a suppressor. It protects my ears, reduces recoil and muzzle flash, enhances accuracy, and harbors good neighbors.

And I’m sure a lot of people would agree with me if suppressors were easier to acquire. That said, I’d like to turn it over to you:

Are you going to buy a suppressor? Or maybe you already have one and would like to share your thoughts.

Either way, let me know by leaving a quick comment down below.

Like this post? Don’t Forget to Pin It on Pinterest!

© All rights reserved.