Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Second Amendment]]>

Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced

by Leave a Comment

It was announced on June 16, 2021 that S. 2050: The Hearing Protection Act has been reintroduced. S 2050 aims “to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove silencers from the definition of firearms, and for other purposes.” The bill is sponsored by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo and co-sponsors include Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina).

The SUSH Act, which the introduction of was reported on earlier this year, is reminiscent of the The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) read on the floor last session, however they do differ. The SUSH Act, in contrast of the HPA, removes the ability for localities and states to regulate suppressors, noting the federal standard will have preemption.

What will the act do? From a press release:

Reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms;
Remove suppressors from regulation under the NFA;
Replace the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun; and
Tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the NFA, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.

As outlined above, the release dose point out:

The HPA would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressors, nor does it get rid of the requirement for a background check.

Any measures to remove these burdens from the lives of responsible gun owners in the United States needs to be applauded and advocated for. If I had to choose SUSH over HPA, I might lean towards SUSH, but none-the-less the HPA would be leaps and bounds for those in favor of freedom. The HPA press release also states some of the important science that gets overlooked by the anti-freedom caucus:

On average, suppressors diminish the noise of a gunshot by 20-35 decibels, roughly the same sound reduction provided by earplugs or earmuffs. By further comparison, the most effective suppressors on the market can only reduce the peak sound level of a gunshot to around 110-120 decibels. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, that is as loud as a jackhammer (110 dB) or an ambulance siren (120 dB). Currently regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA), suppressors are subject to additional regulatory burdens.

“Follow the science” is a term that’s been tossed around for the last year and a half probably thousands of time. Well, it’s time that our congresscritters follow the science when it comes to protecting the hearing of the citizenry. The HPA is not only a matter of “science”, it’s also just good manners. Previously when covering the SUSH Act the following was brought up:

Believe it or not, the UK actually does a better job of regulating suppressors than the United States, as a 2014 American Rifleman article pointed out:

The reason UK shooters are so keen on moderators really boils down to common sense and courtesy…Even with the small calibers, UK shooters are quite concerned about controlling noise, and thus their reliance on suppressors. Plenty of rural country remains, but most is home to small farms and scattered residences so that shooting and hunting necessarily occur within earshot of others. Brit riflemen want to be neighborly, and that consideration may prove important in preserving the rights they still have.

Tally-ho! It’s frankly civilized to use suppressors.

In a subsequent release, many co-sponsors and proponents of this bill sounded off. The comments are all worth a read, however this succinct quote best sums up the importance of the bill:

“Making it easier to protect hunters’ and shooting sportsmen’s hearing is a commonsense course of action. These law-abiding citizens want to use their firearms in as safe and enjoyable a way as possible, and I’m proud to join my colleagues to help cut red tape and increase their access to suppressors.” – U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-Arkansas)

If progressives find the SUSH Act to be too “aggressive” perhaps they can get behind the HPA? As Boozman pointed out in his statement, this is just “commonsense”. How’s that for a match made in heaven? Common sense and following the science?

Much like many of the other bills that have been introduced in this session of congress which aim to lift unconstitutional provisions from our laws, I don’t see the HPA passing both chambers. Should the HPA get the approval of lawmakers and make it’s way to Biden’s desk, I’m doubtful the right sticks and strings will be moved to draw his signature on the page. We’ll be monitoring the progress of all the firearm related bills in congress, perhaps with a hopeful eye that this measure will gain appreciable traction.

Missouri's Devastating Response To DOJ Attack On 2A Preservation Act

by Leave a Comment

The Biden administration’s attempt to challenge Missouri’s new 2A Preservation Act is off to a rocky start after Gov. Mike Parson and Attorney General Eric Schimitt laid waste to the DOJ’s objections in a 7-page letter that explains the constitutionality of the new law and declares the state ready to “fight tooth and nail” for the Second Amendment rights of residents.

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we highlight some of the more salient points raised by Parson and Schmitt in their response to the Justice Department, including their rebuttal of the claims by the Biden Justice Department that the new law protecting the constitutional rights of Missourians is itself unconstitutional because it seeks to nullify federal gun control laws.

“Missouri is not attempting to nullify federal law. Instead, Missouri is defending its people from federal government overreach by prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from being used by the federal government to infringe Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms,” Parson and Schmitt said.

Their letter argued Missouri “has every right under our system of government and the Tenth Amendment to place limitations on what state and local officials may do,” It said the DOJ did not identify any conflicts SAPA created with restrictions on state activities and hiring practices when it comes to federal law.

Schmitt and Parson also accused the DOJ of conflicting its own policies when it comes to so-called sanctuary cities, places that limit cooperation with the federal government over immigration issues.

“President Biden and the Department of Justice have decided to reward states and cities that refuse to cooperate with enforcing constitutional immigration laws that protect our citizens against foreign threats, but now they attack Missouri for refusing to cooperate with enforcing unconstitutional gun confiscation laws that put our citizens in danger and degrade their rights. You cannot have it both ways,” the letter said.

The pair concluded their response to the Department of Justice by saying they’re willing to “fight tooth and nail” to defend the Second Amendment rights of Missourians and the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

We’ll be delving back into this topic on Monday’s program, when we’ll be talking with Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt himself about the Biden administration’s attempt to attack the new 2A Preservation Act in the court of public opinion and whether or not he expects the fight to eventually end up in a court of law.

Abbott Says Family Of Austin Shooting Victim “Adamant” About Protecting 2A Rights

by Leave a Comment

After a shooting on Austin’s popular Sixth Street last weekend, some Democrats and gun control activists in Texas tried to use the tragedy to torpedo the permitless carry bill that had been approved by lawmakers. State Rep. Vicki Goodwin was among those urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto the bill, claiming that if the governor were to sign the legislation so soon after the shooting that killed one person and left more than a dozen other people injured, Texans would “see this decision as a seal of approval on the practice of solving disputes with guns.”

Well, Abbott rejected that argument and signed the Constitutional Carry bill privately on Wednesday afternoon before holding a public signing ceremony for HB 1927 and six other pro-2A bills in San Antonio on Thursday. Afterwards, Abbott was asked by a reporter about the timing of the signing, given the shooting in Austin, and the governor’s responded by noting that he had spoken to the family of 25-year old Doug Kantor, the man who was killed last weekend.

“The family members are heartbroken about what happened, but the family members were adamant about two things: one, do not let this crime committed by teenagers be a reason to eliminate gun rights in the United States of America.

Second thing they told me is they were adamant also that they were against policies that defund police and our cities, like what happened Austin, Texas. The last thing everybody must understand, those who believe and support Second Amendment rights, we support the right of every law-abiding American to be able to have a weapon to defend themselves.

That is different from teenagers unlawfully getting access to guns to commit crimes. Those are people who deserve to be behind bars for the rest of their lives.”

As Abbott noted, the two individuals that have been arrested and charged with the shooting are both juveniles who allegedly were in illegal possession of firearms when the opened fire on the crowded street in Austin’s entertainment district. Even under the state’s new Constitutional Carry law, which recognizes the right of legal gun owners to lawfully carry a firearm in self-defense without the need for a government permit, these teens would have been breaking the law by carrying a handgun (not to mention shooting at one another).

Kudos to Austin television station KXAN for reporting on the governor’s comments, because most other media outlets have ignored them. KVUE-TV also covered Abbott’s remarks about his conversation with the Kantor family, but made sure to follow up the governor’s response with criticism of the new permitless carry law from Austin mayor Steve Adler.

I have no idea if the Kantor family will choose to make any public statements about the new Constitutional Carry law or the Second Amendment, and it’s understandable if they decide not to speak with the media about their views on the Second Amendment or gun control. However, I do think it’s important that news outlets at least report on Abbott’s comments, because the media generally follows a narrative after these shootings that focuses almost exclusively on those calling for more gun control. It’s a sad fact, but if someone loses a loved one in a shooting and doesn’t embrace an anti-gun ideology, most reporters tend to lose interest in what they have to say.

The media’s preferred narrative after a shooting is that more gun control laws would have made a difference, and they tend to focus on those voices that will help amplify that message. The reality is that there are many individuals who’ve felt the pain of losing a loved one, yet don’t believe that gun control is the answer to stopping these types of crimes. It doesn’t mean that they care more about their guns than their kids, or that they’ve become bought and paid for tools of the “gun lobby.” It simply means that they’re looking for solutions that will actually work, and they haven’t found them in gun bans, licensing laws, or universal background check requirements.

Since the awful day in 2018 when a killer opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, I’ve had the opportunity to get to know the father of one of the victims pretty well. Ryan Petty has been a guest on Cam & Co several times over the past few years, and I’ve not only come to consider Ryan a friend, but I’ve been truly impressed with his dedication to ensuring that other parents never have to go through the pain and grief that his family has lived with since Alaina Petty was murdered.

Ryan has worked extensively with state officials, local law enforcement, and even the Secret Service on ways to prevent school shootings that don’t involve banning guns or putting new restrictions on legal gun owners, but he doesn’t get nearly the amount of press attention as other parents like Fred Guttenberg and Manuel Oliver who’ve channeled their grief into gun control activism.

That’s just the reality of the news industry, but it doesn’t reflect the true range of viewpoints on gun control and the Second Amendment by the victims and family members of violent crimes. Losing a loved one doesn’t automatically turn someone into a gun control activist, and some of the most articulate and passionate supporters of the right to keep and bear arms that I know are people who know all too well the pain and horror of a beloved husband, wife, son, or daughter to an armed killer.

Oregon Republican Could Be Recalled Over Gun Control Bill

by Leave a Comment

When Oregon lawmakers approved a gun control bill earlier this year mandating storage requirements for firearms, banning guns from the state capitol, and allowing schools and universities in the state to adopt their own gun bans, State Sen. Lynn Findley was one of several Republicans who spoke out and voted against the bill. However, Findley now faces the prospect of being recalled; not because of his vote, but because he showed up for the legislative session.

Earlier this week, a Mount Vernon veteran named Patrick Kopke-Hales initiated a petition process that, if successful, could force a recall election against state Sen. Lynn Findley, R-Vale.

“Senator Findley’s actions, or inaction, go against the values and principles of the constituents he represents, the oath in which he swore upon, and the Republican Party values, beliefs and principles,” Kopke-Hales wrote on his prospective petition.

Kopke-Hales has two reasons for wanting Findley ousted, he told OPB.

Findley was one of six Republicans to attend a March 25 floor session, granting quorum to supermajority Democrats against the wishes of many gun rights supporters. Though Findley spoke forcefully against Senate Bill 554 that day, Democrats handily passed the proposal to create new gun storage laws, ban guns in the Capitol and Portland International Airport, and allow Oregon schools and universities to implement their own bans.

“SB 554 is the worst bill I’ve ever read in my life,” Kopke-Hales said Thursday. “We wanted them to deny quorum on this bill.”

Kopke-Halas is also angry at Findley for supporting a bill that didn’t survive the legislative session but still roused the ire of many conservatives in the state. SB 865 would have made it illegal to hold a state-level elected office while also serving on the central committee of an Oregon political party, a move that was aimed directly at two Republican state senators who also serve on the central committee of the Oregon Republican Party. Findley was a sponsor of the legislation, and Kopke-Harris calls that bill the “icing on the cake” that led him to start a recall petition drive.

Findley isn’t the only Republican facing a potential recall for not walking out on the legislative session where Democrats approved their gun control bill. Senate Minority Leader Fred Girod is also the subject of a recall drive, and organizers of the recall effort have until July 6th to get nearly 9,000 signatures from voters in Girod’s district before a recall election can take place.

Ordinarily, showing up for work wouldn’t be much of a reason to oust a sitting state senator, but several walkouts have  taken place over the past few years in Oregon, because it’s basically the only way that Republicans can block Democrat proposals. The tactic is still used fairly sparingly, however, and many conservatives like Kopke-Harris felt that the gun control bill that was ultimately approved does so much damage to the Second Amendment that Republicans should have simply stayed home that day instead of allowing the bill to be approved on party lines.

We’ll see how much energy these recall drives have in just a few weeks, but even if they’re successful gun owners face a more existential problem than whether or not GOP legislators should be walking out of the state capitol more frequently. Oregon was once a reliably Republican state, but with almost half of the state’s population now centered around the People’s Republic of Portland, Democrats dominate state government, and that’s unlikely to change in the short term.

If I were running a 2A group in Oregon, I’d not only be working to elect pro-gun Republicans, but I’d be spending time and energy talking to Democrats about why their support for gun control is fundamentally at odds with their efforts to “reimagine policing” and end mass incarceration. Democrats in Nevada rejected a gun control bill over fears of racial profiling earlier this year, and with some effort Second Amendment advocates might be able to persuade anti-gun lawmakers in Oregon to at least consider the unintended consequences of their own gun control bills in the future.

McCloskeys Plead Guilty To Misdemeanor Charges In Gun Case

by Leave a Comment

The legal saga of Mark and Patricia McCloskey took a surprising turn on Thursday when the couple pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of harassment and assault, agreeing to forfeit the firearms they displayed as a crowd of protesters tromped through their gated community last summer.

Gov. Brad Parson had previously vowed to pardon the couple if they were convicted on charges of unlawful use of a weapon, and the McCloskeys had previously said through their attorney that they weren’t interested in accepting pre-trial diversion in lieu of a trial, which makes the news of their guilty plea a bit of a shock.

After the court hearing on Thursday, Mark McCloskey, who’s running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by retiring Sen. Roy Blunt, was unrepentant about the incident last June.

“I’d do it again,” he said from the courthouse steps in downtown St. Louis. “Any time the mob approaches me, I’ll do what I can to put them in imminent threat of physical injury because that’s what kept them from destroying my house and my family.”

The McCloskeys’ defense lawyer, Joel Schwartz, said after the hearing the couple had hoped to raise money by donating Mark’s rifle to charity, but acknowledged that it was an unusual request.

Because the charges are misdemeanors, the McCloskeys do not face the possibility of losing their law licenses and can continue to own firearms.

On the courthouse steps after the hearing, special prosecutor Richard Callahan said the misdemeanor plea was reasonable noting the McCloskeys called the police, no shots were fired and no one was hurt.

“But I think that their conduct was a little unreasonable in the end,” he said. “I don’t think people should view this case as some type of betrayal or assault on the Second Amendment. We still have the Second Amendment rights. It’s just that the Second Amendment does not permit unreasonable conduct.”

Callahan had recently amended the charges against the McCloskeys to give a jury the option of convicting the couple of misdemeanor harassment instead of the felony unlawful use of a weapon charges that were originally filed by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. Gardner was removed from prosecuting the pair by a judge who ruled that Gardner had disqualified herself by using the McCloskey case in fundraising appeals for her re-election campaign.

I confess that I didn’t see this plea deal coming. With the governor assuring the pair of a pardon, and Mark McCloskey’s senate campaign in full swing, I saw the trial as an opportunity for McCloskey to get a lot of free press coverage without running the risk of actually going to jail or prison if he and his wife were convicted. It’s one thing to run for Senate on a campaign of “I stood up to the mob and stood my ground when I was prosecuted for it.” It’s something else entirely to base your campaign message on “I stood up to the mob but took a plea deal because it was in my best interest to do so.”

The legal saga is over, but the political campaign will continue, at least for now. I’m not sure what Mark McCloskey’s been using as his intro music for his campaign rallies, but I have a suggestion for the next one.