Chief says: “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.” READ MORE
On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.” That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have and always will use any means at their disposal to harm innocent, defenseless people. It also revealed the unfortunate agenda of the proceedings, which was to emphasize politics and finger-pointing over any useful exploration of how Congress might take meaningful steps to improve public safety.
The most startling 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.
This admission seemed to indicate that Brackney would be open to the banning of any firearm — or even any weapon — whatsoever, since a criminal bent on “hunt[ing] individuals” could use virtually any firearm for that purpose.
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.) even 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, however, Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking, “Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?” “Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”
The entire exchange can be seen at this link, click HERE
Notably, 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.
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.
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 … .”
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. 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.” 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.
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.
18 thoughts on “Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing”
Well, technically it didn’t cover “weapons of war” – AKA FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.
And AR15 and semiauto AK47s are NOT “weapons of war”. Hell, our own DOD has specifically stated that. Need to press that these are NOT weapons of war. They just look like them. Like how people argued civilians didn’t need the power bolt action rifles were capable of post WWI. And remember, if they classify any weapon used in war by a military, that includes bolt action rifles, and autoloader/pump shotguns, and all pistols… Very dangerous language to allow.
Rather like banning all cars that LOOK LIKE full track only race cars.
By using the criteria “weapons of war” all firearms of today once were or are derivatives of “weapons of war”. They are being intellectually dishonest and vague. The fact remains the 2A was written explicitly for citizens to have the ability to go to war against tyranny of their own government if necessary. They don’t want to discuss facts or cause and effect to combat the real problems in our society. If they did they would alienate half of there constituency to mental facilities.
You are correct. The term “assault weapon” is a “talking point dreamed up by the DEMOCOMMUNISTS and RINOS to instill fear into people that do not understand the function of a sporting rifle. OUR IDIOT MORONIC “governor” (emperor) cuomo in COMMUNIST N.Y. said “you don’t need 10 bullets to kill a DEER”! BUT you damn well have more than that if a GANG kicks in your door to try to rob or murder you, and your family. The “second” was never written for hunting or target shooting, it was included by our founders to help law-abiding citizens protect themselves from TYRANNICAL COMMUNIST DICTATORS like are infesting our “government” (state and federal) TODAY. This is , and never was about “gun control” it has always been about the control of the Law-abiding citizens, because as long as WE the People are ARMED, the corrupt COMMUNISTS cannot “take over” and turn us all into controlled SHEEP to be used, abused,or ELIMINATED as they see fit.
Nothing to see here except another anti-gun liberal hack. Most police chiefs are appointed, especially in the ultra liberal East, so what she says is no surprise. Nor is it a surprise that she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. The 2018 FBI UCR was just released earlier this week. Once again, it shows that gun ownership is up significantly, crime overall is down, and rifles account for less that 3% of all firearms deaths. That’s ALL rifles, and black rifles – so called assault rifles – are only a small percent of those. So, once again, we see that it isn’t about guns, or keeping people safe, its about who has the power. If we let our guns be taken away, WE DON’T HAVE THE POWER. They do. Let that sink in.
What about rocks? Sticks? Steak knives? Toe nail clippers? Hand tools?
Police Chiefs are employees of their municipality, thus they tend to fall in line with whatever the City Leadership says. If the Mayor or City Council are Anti-Gun, then typically so is the Police Chief. Look to your County Sheriff. Since they’re elected, they’re are usually more in line and in sync with the community, than with the council or Mayor.
When you see the Association of Police Chiefs going along with Gun Control measures, you’ll usually find the Sheriff’s Association opposed to the same measures. Most Police Chief’s back Red Flag Laws, whereas Most County Sheriffs oppose Red Flag Laws. Sure, there’s exceptions, but they’re the minority.
What this C o P doesn’t seem to know or perhaps doesn’t care to know is the fact that law abiding citizens aren’t hunting people. It is those she is supposed to be hunting because they are criminals or gang members that do the shooting of innocent people. One has to wonder why those two elements are excluded from red flag gun laws, are they politicians new backup?
“are they (red flag gun laws) politicians new backup?”
yes they are Vern…
Only a simpleton or a sheeple would not be able to ‘connect the dots’ -or not care their human rights were just stolen…
I don’t know how that woman got to be Chief of Police, but it is clear that she is ignorant of the history behind the Constitution, human nature of the criminals, and history in general. The populace of the city she is COP in, need to vote her out.
Oath of office, she should be shown the door…
So you want to ban every “weapon” that could be used to hunt down humans. Let’s start with the simple stone. That could be and has been used to hunt down and kill humans, and in some parts of the world still is in use so the stone is banned. Next we have a stick. Yes something so simple as the stick has been used to kill another human, so the stick is banned. How about a sling-shot, that to is now banned. The bow and arrow, well we all know about it’s history. so it’s on the ban list. Can you see where this is going? Address the real issue(s) that have created the mass violence and stop blaming an object. A drunk driver hits and kills another human. We hold that driver accountable. We don’t attack the vehicle he was driving or the vehicle manufacturer. Nor do you attack the alcohol industry. Even though both were a factor in the death of another human being. All your arguments for “common sense” gun-control fail drastically when you resort to this level of stupidity.
” “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” Brackney replied. ”
WHY hasn’t anyone brought up the FACT that Brackney has committed a treasonous act by forsaking the OATH she took to defend the U.S. Constitution when she accepted the lucrative position she holds? By speaking against the 2nd Amendment AS IT IS WRITTEN, she has shown all Americans that she has ignored, and is working against the intent and meaning of it, as written by the founders; to serve as a DETERRENT to ‘All enemies, both Foreign and Domestic’ By doing so she also proved she is a ‘law enforcement’ scofflaw. AND that she herself is one of America’s ‘domestic enemies’ the OATH warns us all about …
So,.. THAT said, WHY has she not been arrested by the United States Attorney General for such sedition?
If we look at history we will see that the King issued a confiscation order of the arms of the Colonist. This would be the last order that the King would issue before the Colonist took their arms to resist the tyranny of the King. Most of you know the rest of story. Will you go silently in the night? Or will history repeat it’s self? Because the day will come when the King asks for your arms, not if, but when. That day maybe closer than you think.
This person isn’t interested in the law. As all other politicians they are only concerned with keeping their jobs.
As a Rochester,NY police officer was stabbed in the face (among other places) , I suppose she would advocate that we follow our UK bretheren and ban knives as well
I think the police have firearms they use when hunting suspects that have holed up and want a stand off. How about we ban the police use of such weapons too. How can those sworn to uphold the law be above the law?
I’m sick of these communist politicians trying to reword/reinterpret what has been made perfectly clear for 240 years, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!
The civilian population is to have military arms of the day for self defense against their TYRANY!!
I will accept no more infringement nor will I comply with unjust, unconstitutional laws!
GO POUND SAND OR GET TO FIGHTING!!