New concerning information behind the VA Democrats' incessant and aggressive gun ban efforts. Democratic lawmakers, if they win the General Assembly after the November 5, 2019 elections, are planning to pass bills that will make possession of ANY firearm that can accept a "10 round or higher capacity" magazine a Class-6 felony.
IMPLICATIONS: Consider the fact that magazine entensions have been made even for the shitty Lorcin and Jimenez .25 and .32 caliber "hood blasters". There are Glock drums and single stack extenders that allow their respective pistols to fire anywhere between 25 to 60 rounds.
The passing of this bill will effectively mean the banning of all semi-automatic pistols and rifles that feeds from an external magazine.
This revelation comes just days after the police chief of Charlottesville, VA, gave a speech at a US House Judiciary meeting called "Protecting America From Assault Weapons", supporting not just a total gun ban, but the banning of "any weapons that may be used to commit murder".
www.nraila.org
----------
On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 1/2 hearing entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.” That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have and always will use any means at their disposal to harm innocent, defenseless people. It also revealed the unfortunate agenda of the proceedings, which was to emphasize politics and finger-pointing over any useful exploration of how Congress might take meaningful steps to improve public safety.
The most startling claim of the proceedings came when Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia responded to a question from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) about whether she would support a ban on hunting rifles. “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” Brackney replied.
This admission seemed to indicate that Brackney would be open to the banning of any firearm – or even any weapon – whatsoever, since a criminal bent on “hunt[ing] individuals” could use virtually any firearm for that purpose.
Dr. Brackney was given two opportunities by pro-gun committee members to walk back or provide more context for that statement. Instead, she dug in and reiterated the statement.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) even asked her directly, “Okay, so you then stand for the proposition to ban any type of firearm, because any firearm can be used and misused to kill people.”
Rather than answering the question directly, Dr. Brackney began talking about police and the social contract. Rep. Steube tried asking again, only to be interrupted by an anti-gun committee member who tried to raise a point of order. She claimed that Rep. Steube was “attacking” the witness – when in fact he was merely trying to get a straight answer – and requested that he “tone down his words.” That exchange took up most of Steube’s remaining time for questioning, which was not reinstated.
Again, however, Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking, “Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?” “Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”
The entire exchange can be seen at this link.
Notably, none of the committee members or witnesses in favor of the ban attempted to distance themselves from Brackney’s push for a complete gun ban.
Unfortunately, Dr. Brackney’s statements may have been one of the only honest claims of the entire hearing by those arguing in favor of the ban.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Harvard Law School graduate, told a breathtaking whopper about the U.S. Supreme Court’s pivotal Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. He claimed the decision says, “the Second Amendment gives you a right to a handgun for purposes of self-defense and a rifle for purposes of hunting or recreation, but nowhere does it give you a right to weapons of war … .”
The essence of the Heller decision is that Americans have a right to possess the sorts of bearable arms “in common use for lawful purposes,” particularly self-defense, and that handguns qualify because they are overwhelmingly chosen by responsible, law-abiding persons for that purpose. Notably, the decision does not purport to overturn the 1939 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, which held that the Second Amendment protection extends to arms that are “part of the ordinary military equipment” or the use of which “could contribute to the common defense.” It also notes that while Americans of the founding era might have owned firearms primarily for self-defense and hunting, the founders themselves wanted to ensure the Second Amendment provided an effective check against disarming the people, which in turn was necessary to “be able to resist tyranny.”
Nowhere does either decision suggest that rifles are only protected to the extent they are used for hunting or recreation. Indeed, Heller makes clear that self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” with which the Second Amendment is concerned.
Another theme pushed again and again was that “assault weapons” like the AR-15 are “battlefield weapons” that have no place on “America’s streets.”
Fortunately, as witness Amy Swearer testifies, the overwhelmingly majority of the 16 million or so AR and AK pattern rifles in America are not “on the streets” but in the homes of law-abiding owners who never have and never will use them for anything other than lawful purposes. Violent criminals have not embraced semi-automatic rifles as their “weapons of choice.”
Rifles of all types, of which the guns that would be categorized as “assault weapons” are only a subset, are used in only 2% of homicides. In 2018, more than five times as many people were killed with knives than were killed with all rifles. The same year, more than twice as many people were killed with personal weapons like hands, fists, or feet.
When all was said and done, gun owners had no reassurance that there was any limiting principle to the anti-gun committee members’ prohibitive intentions or that they were willing to learn anything that would influence their decision-making. Indeed, one could imagine that long after semi-automatic rifles were banned, the exact same hearing could be held on the next class of firearm law-abiding gun owners would be forced to surrender because the guns were used in crimes they did not commit.
----------
The video showing the tense showdown between Rep. Greg Steube (R-Florida) and Charlottesville Police Chief Dr. RaShall Brackney can be viewed below at this C-Span link:
www.c-span.org
The dropping out of Beto O'Rourke from the presidential race does not mean that the threat of a total gun ban has passed. Many extremists in the total disarmament campaign have now grown quite bold and are not afraid to blatantly state their intentions with our hallowed rights, liberty, and traditions. The last time that American values and culture have came under the direct threat of annihilation was on the morning of December 7, 1941.
November 5, 2019 will be an extremely crucial day. If the Democrats are allowed to take the General Assembly, that will pave the way for them to open the floodgates and release their totalitarian poison gas over the state from their filthy urban enclaves at will.
Take one long and close look at the official seal and motto of the State of Virginia:
The last time that the homes, family traditions, and moral values of Virginia's citizens came under attack, these men rose to the call and defended the state from it's enemies...
The recent and alarming developments have shown that the call to arms for Virginia's citizens and it's brothers all across the country may not be that far off. Who will be ready to answer it again? I have already made my decision many years ago.
IMPLICATIONS: Consider the fact that magazine entensions have been made even for the shitty Lorcin and Jimenez .25 and .32 caliber "hood blasters". There are Glock drums and single stack extenders that allow their respective pistols to fire anywhere between 25 to 60 rounds.
The passing of this bill will effectively mean the banning of all semi-automatic pistols and rifles that feeds from an external magazine.
This revelation comes just days after the police chief of Charlottesville, VA, gave a speech at a US House Judiciary meeting called "Protecting America From Assault Weapons", supporting not just a total gun ban, but the banning of "any weapons that may be used to commit murder".
NRA-ILA | Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing
On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.” That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have...
www.nraila.org ----------
On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 1/2 hearing entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.” That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have and always will use any means at their disposal to harm innocent, defenseless people. It also revealed the unfortunate agenda of the proceedings, which was to emphasize politics and finger-pointing over any useful exploration of how Congress might take meaningful steps to improve public safety.
The most startling claim of the proceedings came when Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia responded to a question from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) about whether she would support a ban on hunting rifles. “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” Brackney replied.
This admission seemed to indicate that Brackney would be open to the banning of any firearm – or even any weapon – whatsoever, since a criminal bent on “hunt[ing] individuals” could use virtually any firearm for that purpose.
Dr. Brackney was given two opportunities by pro-gun committee members to walk back or provide more context for that statement. Instead, she dug in and reiterated the statement.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) even asked her directly, “Okay, so you then stand for the proposition to ban any type of firearm, because any firearm can be used and misused to kill people.”
Rather than answering the question directly, Dr. Brackney began talking about police and the social contract. Rep. Steube tried asking again, only to be interrupted by an anti-gun committee member who tried to raise a point of order. She claimed that Rep. Steube was “attacking” the witness – when in fact he was merely trying to get a straight answer – and requested that he “tone down his words.” That exchange took up most of Steube’s remaining time for questioning, which was not reinstated.
Again, however, Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking, “Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?” “Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”
The entire exchange can be seen at this link.
Notably, none of the committee members or witnesses in favor of the ban attempted to distance themselves from Brackney’s push for a complete gun ban.
Unfortunately, Dr. Brackney’s statements may have been one of the only honest claims of the entire hearing by those arguing in favor of the ban.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Harvard Law School graduate, told a breathtaking whopper about the U.S. Supreme Court’s pivotal Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. He claimed the decision says, “the Second Amendment gives you a right to a handgun for purposes of self-defense and a rifle for purposes of hunting or recreation, but nowhere does it give you a right to weapons of war … .”
The essence of the Heller decision is that Americans have a right to possess the sorts of bearable arms “in common use for lawful purposes,” particularly self-defense, and that handguns qualify because they are overwhelmingly chosen by responsible, law-abiding persons for that purpose. Notably, the decision does not purport to overturn the 1939 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, which held that the Second Amendment protection extends to arms that are “part of the ordinary military equipment” or the use of which “could contribute to the common defense.” It also notes that while Americans of the founding era might have owned firearms primarily for self-defense and hunting, the founders themselves wanted to ensure the Second Amendment provided an effective check against disarming the people, which in turn was necessary to “be able to resist tyranny.”
Nowhere does either decision suggest that rifles are only protected to the extent they are used for hunting or recreation. Indeed, Heller makes clear that self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” with which the Second Amendment is concerned.
Another theme pushed again and again was that “assault weapons” like the AR-15 are “battlefield weapons” that have no place on “America’s streets.”
Fortunately, as witness Amy Swearer testifies, the overwhelmingly majority of the 16 million or so AR and AK pattern rifles in America are not “on the streets” but in the homes of law-abiding owners who never have and never will use them for anything other than lawful purposes. Violent criminals have not embraced semi-automatic rifles as their “weapons of choice.”
Rifles of all types, of which the guns that would be categorized as “assault weapons” are only a subset, are used in only 2% of homicides. In 2018, more than five times as many people were killed with knives than were killed with all rifles. The same year, more than twice as many people were killed with personal weapons like hands, fists, or feet.
When all was said and done, gun owners had no reassurance that there was any limiting principle to the anti-gun committee members’ prohibitive intentions or that they were willing to learn anything that would influence their decision-making. Indeed, one could imagine that long after semi-automatic rifles were banned, the exact same hearing could be held on the next class of firearm law-abiding gun owners would be forced to surrender because the guns were used in crimes they did not commit.
----------
The video showing the tense showdown between Rep. Greg Steube (R-Florida) and Charlottesville Police Chief Dr. RaShall Brackney can be viewed below at this C-Span link:
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Assault Weapons
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on assault weapons and their use in recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Witnesses testified on the proposed bans on assault weapons such as the AR-15, the effectiveness of previous federal gun legislation, and how to find a...
www.c-span.org The dropping out of Beto O'Rourke from the presidential race does not mean that the threat of a total gun ban has passed. Many extremists in the total disarmament campaign have now grown quite bold and are not afraid to blatantly state their intentions with our hallowed rights, liberty, and traditions. The last time that American values and culture have came under the direct threat of annihilation was on the morning of December 7, 1941.
November 5, 2019 will be an extremely crucial day. If the Democrats are allowed to take the General Assembly, that will pave the way for them to open the floodgates and release their totalitarian poison gas over the state from their filthy urban enclaves at will.
Take one long and close look at the official seal and motto of the State of Virginia:
The last time that the homes, family traditions, and moral values of Virginia's citizens came under attack, these men rose to the call and defended the state from it's enemies...
The recent and alarming developments have shown that the call to arms for Virginia's citizens and it's brothers all across the country may not be that far off. Who will be ready to answer it again? I have already made my decision many years ago.
