In the world of politics, politicians like it when they know they can control people. That’s why they hate President Trump – because he’s not one of them. And he’s proven once again that he’ll continue to tap people for positions that are also not from the world of politics.
Enter: a former cop.
The National Fraternal Order of Police is endorsing their former president in his nomination to be the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
But there are those in the Senate Judiciary Committee, to include some Republicans, that still have some questions.
In the letter, dated September 26, Yoes addresses the NFOP Executive Board, the National Board of Trustees, State Lodge Presidents and Secretaries saying:
There have been several media reports today that the Administration will be pulling its nomination of Immediate Past National President Chuck Canterbury to be the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
These reports are false. Chuck continues to have the full support and confidence of the President and his Administration.
And now it is critical that the Members of Senate Judiciary hear that you, the members of the FOP and strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment, also support Chuck!
- Chuck has made it clear, over the course of his career of service and numerous testimonies before Congress, that he is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
- Chuck is the Immediate Past National President and CEO of the Fraternal Order of Police for 16 years and has a proven and established track record of leadership and integrity.
- At our recently concluded 64th Biennial National Conference, approximately many thousands of delegates, representing officers from all 50 States, offered a resolution directing the National FOP to endorse Chuck’s nomination. It passed unanimously.
- The nation’s leading law enforcement organizations have endorsed his nomination.
- He is also recognized internationally as an expert on law enforcement management and representation, currently serving as a board member of the International Council of Police Representatives Association, which represents over 1.4 million law enforcement officers worldwide.
- He started his law enforcement career as a street officer and his lifetime of knowledge and experience make him an excellent choice to be the next ATF Director.
We need our members to help combat FAKE NEWSabout Chuck and his record. Call the Members of the Judiciary Committee and tell them you are a FOP member and Second Amendment supporter and you want them to vote YES on the Canterbury nomination.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, the confirmation of President Trump’s pick to head the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in jeopardy as some Republican senators expressed concern that he would restrict the rights of gun owners, people familiar with the matter said.
However, the White House said Thursday it is standing by Mr. Canterbury’s nomination.
“The president has confidence in Chuck, and we look forward to continued conversations with members on the Judiciary Committee to discuss important issues,” a White House official said.
They also said the White House hasn’t considered withdrawing his nomination.
Canterbury currently doesn’t have enough Republican support to advance beyond the Senate Judiciary Committee, causing a Thursday vote on his nomination to be indefinitely postponed.
Failing to confirm Mr. Canterbury would leave the ATF without a permanent, politically appointed director at a time when the law enforcement agency is at the forefront of the Trump administration’s fight against violent crime and as the White House and Congress continue to negotiate gun-control measures after several mass shootings in recent months.
Mr. Canterbury would be the first permanent director in five years and only the second in the bureau’s history. Some ATF officials were cautiously optimistic that having a leader with support from the president and other administration officials would boost the agency, which has struggled with resource problems.
Mr. Canterbury tangled in his July confirmation hearing with Republican senators who were frustrated that he wouldn’t clearly define his views on gun-control measures such as expanding background checks for prospective buyers and a ban on “assault rifles”.
He was head of the FOP when it took positions supporting more-rigorous gun-control measures including an expansion of background checks. But he wouldn’t immediately say what stance he would take if confirmed to the ATF, only that he would consult with other Justice Department officials.
“I believe it’s my responsibility to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress, and I’d make sure every agent working for me would understand that,” he said during the hearing.
Would he say the same should Congress enact mandatory buy backs gun confiscation legislation?
Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana criticized him as evasive and said, “If you’re not familiar with the process running ATF…then you’re not qualified.”
Later, though, Mr. Canterbury said he wouldn’t support further restrictions on gun ownership, or an “assault-weapons” ban if confirmed. He said he wouldn’t favor an expansion of background checks for private gun sales, which has put him in at odds with lawmakers who are considering measures along those lines.
The White House is currently looking at several gun proposals including expanded background checks, an idea that has been floated by Attorney General William Barr. But Mr. Trump has given little indication of which measures he will endorse.
A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said he “has concerns about Canterbury’s Second Amendment views” and is pleased the vote has been delayed.
It wouldn’t be the first time a Trump nominee was scuttled by fellow Republicans. Sen. Lee and others opposed the president’s pick for a top Justice Department slot, Jessie Liu, over concern that she wasn’t conservative enough on abortion rights.
On Wednesday, a former police officer came to Capitol Hill with a powerful message on gun control: “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.
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”.
“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