Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Video]]>

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.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Moves to Dismantle ATF

by Leave a Comment

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is certainly a controversial figure in the House of Representatives. Some in the pro-gun community might even say she’s as controversial at the ATF. Others might say she’s moreso, but it doesn’t matter.

Honestly, Greene has said some stuff that landed her in pretty hot water, but now she’s saying something that a lot of people on this side of the aisle are just going to love.

She’s talking about abolishing the ATF.

Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is looking to get rid of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), in an effort to protect gun owners from a “tyrannical, power hungry group of bureaucrats.”

Greene, a staunch advocate for Second Amendment rights, introduced legislation on Thursday that would abolish the ATF and repeal regulations and guidance issued after August 2020. The legislation comes as Republicans push back on Dave Chipman, President Joe Biden‘s nominee to head the ATF, who they see as a threat to the right to own firearms.

The legislation, as reported by The Daily Caller, would abolish the ATF six months after the bill is enacted. It would also require President Joe Biden to inform every employee of the ATF in writing of the abolishment date.

Along with making the ATF a defunct agency, Greene’s legislation would set up an auction for the firearms and ammunition the ATF confiscated. Greene’s looking to use the proceeds from the auction to create a fund for families of Border Patrol officers killed in the line of duty after December 1, 2009, according to the Daily Caller. After providing grants of up to $150,000 per family affected, remaining funds would go to states who establish firearm safety programs.

Honestly, this is just glorious.

It’s not going to happen, of course, but it’s glorious.

First, let’s talk about just why it won’t happen. I mean, look at the makeup of Congress. This is the kind of Congress least likely to pass legislation like this. Yet even if there were a GOP majority, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find enough Republicans that would back a bill like this. They may not like how the ATF conducts business, but the ATF is responsible for more than just firearms, and some of that is going to be stuff that they’ll figure needs to be enforced.

But that doesn’t change how much I’m going to enjoy this one.

See, Greene’s bill is mostly virtue-signaling, it’s just virtue-signaling that we like. However, that’s not all it is. Perhaps the best part is that this will put many of the people who are talking about defunding the police in a position where they’re going to have to defend a law enforcement agency. They hate the cops, yet they’ll now have to defend the cops.

After all, the “defund the police” crowd overlaps heavily with the gun control crowd. The Venn diagram isn’t quite a single circle, but pretty close., which means Greene’s bill puts them in a position of either agreeing with her–and absolutely no one in either crowd wants to do that–or they have to defend the ATF.

For gun grabbers, that’s not a big deal. For the “defund the police” crowd, though, well, that’s a different matter entirely.

So, despite the fact that this bill will never pass or even make it out of committee, it might be the savviest move Greene has made during her short career in the House. I doubt it’ll erase memories of some of her past issues, but it’s still brilliant.

Plus, frankly, it’s always good to go on the offensive instead of playing defense all the time.

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.

Military Downplays Stolen Gun Report

by Leave a Comment

Earlier this week, I wrote about an AP report on the total number of weapons missing from military armories. There are a number of ways to take the report, to be sure, but a lot of people were legitimately alarmed.

To be sure, there’s nothing good about 1,900 or so weapons missing from armories, somehow unaccounted for, especially since most of them are things generally not legally available on the civilian market. Things like rifles capable of full-auto or three-round burst–both of which make them NFA firearms–are bad enough, but the report also covered things like grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and even some mortars.

I kind of want a mortar now, for the record.

Anyway, it seems the military has thoughts.

The U.S. military’s top general on Thursday downplayed a recent Associated Press report that found at least 1,900 military firearms had gone missing or stolen over the past decade, claiming the real figure was “much less.”

“I saw the reports as well … I was, frankly, shocked by the numbers that were in there,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.

Milley said the numbers from service reports submitted to him as of Thursday morning on missing firearms “are significantly less numbers than are reported” in the AP story, which was released Tuesday.

“That’s not to say it’s zero, but it’s much less. So, I need to square the balance here. I owe you a firm answer,” he added.

The AP claims that the military didn’t provide some basic information and argued they likely undercounted the total number of weapons missing.

However, as I noted earlier this week, this is over the span of a decade. With a military as large as ours, with millions upon millions of weapons in inventory and thousands purchased every year, something in the neighborhood of 190 weapons per year going missing doesn’t sound like a whole hell of a lot.

Especially when some of them were likely demilled or cannibalized for some reason and the paperwork got screwed up.

However, Milley claims the number isn’t even that high. Could he be right?

Well, Milley apparently intends to submit the numbers he has to Congress, which I’d think he’d want to make sure are accurate. He also wants to try and figure out how the AP got their numbers, which is fair. There are going to be questions for him about why the AP reports one thing and he’s reporting something else.

Truth be told, this is one of those things where Milley is going to get grilled no matter what. Congress will say, with some justification, that the correct number of missing weapons should be zero. I don’t think anyone will dispute that.

Unfortunately, with millions of service members between active and reserve components, there’s just no way to make that happen. Someone will take guns for profit. Some will get lost in the field. Others will be put somewhere and forgotten about, lost until the end of time…or until someone finds them, anyway.

You’re never going to hit the number zero. It’s just not going to happen. As it stands, what the AP reported sounds scarier than it actually is. Especially when you consider all the people and moving parts that make the military work. Honestly, I’m surprised it’s not more than that. In the past, it was.

But what the AP report does is scare people, and scared people motivate politicians, so Milley has to deal with this. I look forward to his report to Congress. It should make for some interesting reading, especially if it can explain the discrepancy.