Editor note: This officer submitted his thoughts in response to comments made to Congress from his chief. In order to protect his identity, and his job, we’ve kept the name of the officer private and included his comments in an overview about what’s happening in America right now.
I am sick of chiefs like mine running their mouths about how we need gun control. They are not chiefs. They are politicians in police clothing. And it’s time for them to go.
I have a message for YOU, chief, from me and the other officers I have stood next to for more than a decade:
“You’re a fake chief and when it comes to gun control, we won’t comply.”
Last week, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.”
That hearing covered issues that were framed to overlook the false narrative that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, and not from violent people with criminal tendencies. People who will use anything and everything at their disposal to carry out their violent plans.
The hearing also revealed the true agenda of the Democratic leadership, which was to lay out arguments In favor of the repealing of the 2ndAmendment, the illegalization of weapons ownership, and the left’s complete refusal to engage in useful conversation regarding how Congress might attack the issue of gun safety.
Easily the most eye-opening 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.
Her statement seemed to indicate that she would be open to the banning of all firearms, and more specifically, all weapons.
So, for those keeping score at home, here is a list of items that would also need to be banned, according to the good doctor.
Guns. Knives. Vehicles. Baseball bats. Fire. Rocks. Rope. Screwdrivers. Hammers. Hands. The list goes on and on.
“This chief is more concerned with scoring points to be a future appointee or politician than she is with actually keeping people safe, upholding the Constitution or even standing by the oath we all took.”
While Brackney did not actually call for a ban of these other items, that is essentially what she is doing in using such careless language.
According to the NRA, 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.) 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 Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking:
“Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?”
And then the response…
“Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”
Sadly, 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.
Okay, let’s pause here for a quick question.
Does anyone else have an issue with Dr. Police Chief saying that all means of self-defense should be outlawed, while sitting on the side of the table that would be allowed to keep weapons should the government ever follow her advice?
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.
In an outright misrepresentation (or as we like to call them, lies), 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.”
In a very concise breakdown, the NRA said that 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.
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.
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.”
“There’s a growing number of officers like myself who are sick and tired of our chiefs running their mouths, trying to overrule the United States Constitution. Let me explain something to your readers at LET. If Red Flag laws or weapons bans are passed, we WILL NOT COMPLY.”
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 testified, 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.
Remember the list of potentially banned items, I forgot to add 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.
In September, a former police officer went to Capitol Hill with a powerful message of her own: “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.
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.
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”.
“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.
Dummy Beto made it much harder to make a deal. Convinced many that Dems just want to take your guns away. Will continue forward! https://t.co/87jvaYUkyn
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2019
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:
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
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.
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
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 WILL NOT COMPLY.
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…
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
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.
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
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.
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
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?
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
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.
WE WILL NOT COMPLY.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Written by Sergeant A. Merica