She’s a former police officer who came to Capitol Hill with a powerful message Wednesday: “I will not comply”.

She appeared at a congressional hearing over a proposed “assault-weapons ban”.

Dianna Muller served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years.  She also happens to be the founder of gun advocacy group called The DC Project.  Muller was one of several witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

It was a hot topic that largely flew under the radar thanks to the Democrats’ latest impeachment push. But it also highlighted the gun control debate in the country after several mass shootings lead to yet another call for more gun laws.

In the fiery hearing, Muller reinforced the fact that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

“Please don’t legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. It has happened. You’ve already done it,” Muller said, referring to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the devices that use a semi-automatic weapon’s recoil to make it rapidly fire like an automatic. “I was a bump stock owner, and I had to make a decision: do I become a felon, or do I comply?”

And what would happen if the government passes an “assault-weapons ban”? 

Muller: “I will not comply.”

She and others pointed out that a ban isn’t practical.  They drew attention to the fact that the differences between the AR-15 and typical hunting rifles is simply cosmetic.  It’s a topic that was also raised by Heritage Foundation senior legal policy analyst Amy Swearer.  It came up when Rep.J im  Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., went down the line of witnesses asking if they believed hunting rifles should be banned if they are semi-automatic.

Of course Swearer said no. She pointed to the fact that there’s no difference in the mechanics or function of an “assault weapon” or a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans?  It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans.  Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice.  Check it out today.

Former police officer at Capitol Hill assault-weapons ban hearing: “I will not comply”

There was no response from Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley or Dr. Alejandro Rios Tovar, a trauma surgeon who treated victims of the attack in El Paso, Texas.

Then there was the wanna-be politician RaShall Brackney, who is the Chief of Police in Charlottesville, Va.. She indicated she was in favor of a ban on “any weapon that could be used to hunt individuals.”

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., said there was no reason to worry.  He argued that there’d be no hunting rifle ban by referring to his assault-weapon ban bill, saying more than 200 weapons are exempt from the bill.  He claims there is really no issue of eliminating hunting rifles.

Swearer went on to argue against the idea that law-abiding citizens have no need for weapons like AR-15s. She pointed out that her mother, who is a gun novice, had difficulty accurately firing a handgun at a shooting range, but was much more effective when she used an AR-15.

“As I read the Second Amendment, it doesn’t say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed unless the gun has scary features,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.

Swearer went on to point out that some features like barrel shrouds enhance the safety of a weapon for its user.

David Chipman is the senior policy adviser at the Giffords Law Center.  He made the ridiculous argument a barrel shroud could allow a shooter to get a better grip on a weapon “in a way that would increase your ability to spray fire and kill more people” without burning their hand.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the real problem is that some weapons can be used with high-capacity magazines that allow users to fire dozens of rounds without reloading.

Kristen Rand is the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center.  She agreed with Nadler that a ban on such magazines would be effective and said it should come along with a clear definition of “assault weapon” that would eliminate loopholes under the 1994 crime law.

There have been talks between Congress and the Trump administration for weeks about possible gun legislation.

But talks of taking currently legal guns and making them illegal has led to criticism from both parties.

Democrats can thank 2020 presidential-hopeful Beto O’Rourke for that.  He declared during a debate:

“Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, AK-47”.

Cicilline said:

“That message doesn’t help.”

President Trump weighed in that O’Rourke was making it “much harder” to reach a deal on gun legislation with that sort of rhetoric.

When it comes to gun control, Trump’s focus has mainly been on background checks. 

There’s also a one-page document floating on Capitol Hill from the White House detailing a possible gun background-check proposal.  It would require private sellers – not just licensed vendors – to conduct background checks for all advertised sales.

With that said, Attorney General Bill Barr said President Trump has not yet made a “firm decision” on what he ultimately will support.

There was a poll done in August by USA Today.  The small sampling showed that most American voters support increased background checks, with 85 percent of Republican voters supporting background checks for all gun sales.

Right now, only federally licensed vendors are required to conduct background checks.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said last week that he expects an announcement on new gun legislation “very soon.”

He also pointed out that President Trump wanted to make sure that any new laws would address actual problems and not just be “feel-good legislation.”

Of course the Democrats have now changed the game with their latest impeachment push.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had resisted impeachment, said an impeachment inquiry would be launched.  Pelosi has said in private meetings with lawmakers that Trump called her to discuss gun legislation, but SHE changed the subject.  Her focus became those impeachment talks.

In December, we published an article from another officer who flat out said that when it comes to gun confiscation… this officer will also not comply.  In case you missed it, here are his words:


The New Jersey Attorney General has banned large capacity magazines.  They have refused to rule out door to door enforcement and wide spread confiscation.

There’s something residents need to know.


Liberal politicians ARE coming for our guns and ammunition. It starts slowly, like forcing you to turn in magazines that you paid for and have been legal until now.

Do they really believe we’re going to knock on doors and disarm our fellow citizens?  Do they expect us to put our lives on the line to enforce unconstitutional orders?


I might be an officer in New Jersey.  But you will never know my name… because if you did, I would lose my ability to provide for my family.

The truth is that I could be an officer anywhere.  In your town or city.  In your state.  You will never know who I am… but you know me.  I am your neighbor.  I am your friend.  I am your protector.

All you need to know is one thing.  No matter how many anti-gun orders you decide to make… no matter how you use the media to get your message out… no matter how you try and politicize police departments…


My oath isn’t to politicians.  It’s to serve and protect.  It’s to defend the Constitution.  It’s not to be a pawn.  My oath is to the country and Her people.

Last week, New Jersey banned active police officers from possessing their duty weapons while off duty.  Apparently they’re going to change that thanks to media and union pressure.

The union.  A collection of those who, in many cases, have traded their spines for a few pennies. They never should have allowed this to happen.

New Jersey “leaders” have also made it clear they don’t recognize the provisions of the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). It’s an act that allows retired officers to carry our weapons or hollow point ammunition.

Our Attorney General says it applies only to those who carry firearms in interstate commerce, and that if we aren’t leaving the state immediately, it doesn’t count.  That’s NOT why it was created.

But you can’t expect these liberal elitists who have never been shot at to understand that.

The point of it was to protect us and our families from criminals looking to get revenge and to protect those of us who have become targets thanks to the war that was launched on us by liberal politicians.  It was to allow us to be able to respond quickly. Because unlike those who sit on their high horses, we actually run TOWARDS gun fire and danger.

Now New Jersey officials they won’t recognize that law.


New Jersey’s law over gun magazines with a 10 round limit went into effect on December 10 and there’s no exception for law enforcement, meaning that we’re all breaking the law by carrying our assigned duty weapons while off duty.

Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo issued a memorandum to us as a reminder that the prohibition of the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines didn’t just apply to our neighbors… it also applied to us when we are off duty.


In May, the city council in Boulder, Colorado voted to ban possession of high capacity magazines, bump stocks and so-called assault rifles.  They grandfathered in people who already own the rifles.  But they said in order to continue legally owning them, residents are required to “certify” their guns with the police by December 27.

Residents have been told there is no database of gun owners being made (like anyone buys that).

But they ARE keeping a record of the number of rifles reported.

So far… the number reported is 87.  Officials say there are duplicate certificates in that count, making the true number even lower.

There are more than 100,000 people in the city, and CBS News puts gun ownership in Colorado at more than 34 percent.

That means there’s still somewhere around 34,000 firearms that aren’t certified.

It’s worth pointing out that Colorado has about 5,300 uniformed members of the Army National Guard.

Does anyone think patriots like me are going to truly just hand over or report our weapons to be listed on a database?

Do these officials believe officers like me are going to ultimately go to war with our own neighbors over confiscation?


My brothers and sisters, please don’t confuse those of us who hold the thin blue line with those who are trying to destroy it.

I am not alone.

We are with you.  We will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the streets.




Written by Sergeant A. Merica 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First