Get PJ Media on your Apple

Police Chief Shouts at Graham: Gun Background Checks Just ‘a Paper Thing’

Feinstein angles for traction on assault weapons ban in heated Judiciary hearing; Reid says he'll bring one bill to the floor.

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

February 27, 2013 - 8:01 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

For the briefest moment on Capitol Hill today gun control crept back onstage as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) led an emotional hearing on her latest attempt to renew the assault weapons ban.

Feinstein, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in lieu of Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), banged the gavel several times during the course of the hearing to chide a gallery of supporters that would break out into applause at witness statements. A father of a boy killed in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting clutched a framed photo of his son and propped up two more poster-size photos as he wept during his testimony. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), again proudly declaring his ownership of an AR-15, tangled with gun-control advocates over current enforcement of background checks.

Still, by the second panel of witnesses few members of the committee were left on the dais, as a busy day of hearings and caucus powwows pulled members in different direction.

After a closed policy luncheon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated that the assault weapons ban may move from discussion to floor action before too long. Reid said he had an “extended conversation” with Leahy on Tuesday, and the chairman is trying to decide how best to proceed.

“He will come up with a bill or bills. Any one of those bills — I can only bring one of them to the floor — and at that time it’s brought to the floor, if people don’t have in it what they want or they want to take out something that’s in it that they don’t like, they should have the opportunity to offer amendments in that regard,” Reid said. “That’s how I’m going to handle it.”

Feinstein asked gun violence victims from Newtown, Aurora and Virginia Tech to stand at the beginning of the hearing, as well as law enforcement officers in favor of renewing the 10-year ban that expired in 2004.

“Since the ban expired, over 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. Over 450 have been wounded. And the weapons are even more lethal today than they were in 2004,” she said. “…The bill will not take away any weapons that anybody owns today. Anyone who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. Instead, the bill grandfathers weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.”

Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he respects Feinstein’s “very sincere” and “very consistent” views on gun control.

“I happen to have a different view. S. 150 bans guns based solely on their appearance. Some of those cosmetic features are useful for self-defense. Others have nothing to do with functioning of the weapons,” Grassley said. “As a result, the bill would ban some guns that are less powerful, dangerous, and that inflict less severe wounds than others that are exempt. Such arbitrary distinctions and the fact that these weapons are commonly used for self-defense raise constitutional questions under the Second Amendment.”

Particularly up for challenge would be the 10-round magazine limitation, he said, adding that the existing gun laws have served to tilt the scale in favor of criminals who use guns.

“Nationally, only 1 percent of the people, 62 out of 4,732, who were denied guns based on background checks were prosecuted for illegally attempting to acquire firearms. That is much too low of a rate, so let’s see what can be done and accomplished by enforcing laws on the books before adding new ones of questionable effectiveness,” Grassley said.

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn brushed off a self-defense argument, saying “the notion that innocent law abiding citizens will use an assault weapon or a high capacity firearm to protect themselves is not our experience.” In fact, he characterized most crime victims in his city as criminals.

“Ninety-seven percent of our suspects and 82 percent of our victims have criminal histories,” Flynn said of Milwaukee homicides. “Furthermore, our experience indicates that the vast majority of our home invasion victims are drug dealers. They do not need semiautomatic rifles to protect themselves.”

Flynn added that an “intellectually honest” discussion of Feinstein’s bill would note “the issues raised here have more to do with commerce than they do with the Second Amendment. A lot of people make a lot of money selling firearms and ammunition.”

“Now, this isn’t inherently a bad thing, but it can tempt us to search for and grasp onto false logic. The bill being discussed here today places reasonable restrictions on future sales of certain types of firearms and magazines,” he said. “…It prevents the preventable. It’s time for Congress to pick a side.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn brushed off a self-defense argument, saying “the notion that innocent law abiding citizens will use an assault weapon or a high capacity firearm to protect themselves is not our experience.”

Hmmmm, how 'bout a gun, man? Just a gun. Pointed in the face of the bad man (or men) who would do good people harm?

This police chief reeks of political agenda. He knows perfectly well that it is not honest, responsible gun owners who are the problem. And he knows as well that he cannot promise the people in his jurisdiction safety against the "gun violence" of criminals. He knows perfectly well that by the time his officers arrive at the scene of yet another atrocity, it will be too late. But oh well. We're not flesh-and-blood human beings out here: we're just statistics, ready to be cooked.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (29)
All Comments   (29)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
“Ninety-seven percent of our suspects and 82 percent of our victims have criminal histories,” Flynn said of Milwaukee homicides. “Furthermore, our experience indicates that the vast majority of our home invasion victims are drug dealers. They do not need semiautomatic rifles to protect themselves.”

And these recidivists are not allowed to purchase firearms of any sort under current law. What about the 18% of your victims who appear to be innocents? Ought not they have the right and the ability to protect themselves with whatever means necessary? Show me the plan to remove the threat, round up all the criminals and then we can discuss exactly what I need or don't need. And then we will have a conversation regarding "The rights of the people" as laid out in the 2nd Amendment.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Refusing to enforce a law specifically designed to identify and punish persons who are ineligible to own firearms is malfeasance of the worst sort. Criminals are emboldened to try to acquire weapons from legal sources because there are no consequences if they are caught.

The deliberate refusal to enforce such laws proves that the liberals gun control element are determined to override the 2d Amendment rather than to disarm criminals, thugs and psychopaths.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure why anyone gives credence to what a chief of police says regarding anything involving law enforcement, especially a chief from a large city. In my experience they know quite a bit about the budget and resource allocation but know almost nothing about crime or fighting it. They are little more than politicians who dress up in the uniform of real working cops and probably should not be allowed to carry a gun for fear they would misplace it or harm themselves or others.
I can hear the retorts now stating that, usually, chiefs are picked from the ranks and that is true. But, and this is the important part, those picked have always been political and politicians and have never really been cops. Sure they held the position but almost all of them had another agenda all the time they were on the job. Ask any real cop and they will tell you the same thing. These are the guys who never had to mix it up while trying to quell a bar fight or walked in on an armed robbery where multiple victims were wounded or killed. These are the guys who were busy going to school learning how to be good liberals, learning how to use the media and learning how to politicize every conceivable situation to further their own ends.
So giving credence to what this chief says would be a mistake because he is merely one more blow hard politician saying what he thinks will gain him the next higher rung on his chosen ladder. Nothing more and nothing less.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence Stats: Violence Is Lower In Right-To-Carry States

http://tinyurl.com/c3f9uqs
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sometimes I am amazed at the dishonesty of these people pushing for gun control. From the police chief, to the final quote of Pelosi herself on Piers show, they make it all sound so much worse than it really is. Totally disregarding the contention of Graham, who I disagree with 90% of the time, that background checks are the problem. He even forced the police chief to admit that truth with gritted teeth and rising voice. Chief says that he doesn't want to enforce the checks, he just wants to prosecute the bad guys who have already committed the crime. So much for interdiction before the crime. Then his lame retort that we need to keep the guns out of law abiding hands to make things safe, huh? After already admitting the problem was not the law abiding but the criminals, he stuck to his guns (pun intended) that we need to keep them from law abiding folks. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Any law enforcement official who claims citizens do not need semi-automatic rifles for self defense, should immediately remove all those weapons from his/her police department. If they are not suitable for defense, then cops don't need them either.
And lets not forget the DHS purchase of 7000 selective fire M4s, which they labeled Personal Defense Weapons.......instead of "assault rifles", the label they use for the semi-automatic AR15s the public buys.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Police are generally forbidden to start violence. Therefore in almost every armed confrontation they are acting in defense. Like you said, if these guns have no defense value, why do they have them?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It’s time for Congress to pick a side."

Yes -- for the Constitution or for tyranny.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he respects Feinstein’s “very sincere” and “very consistent” views on gun control."

Why? Isn't that like "respecting" a Klucker's "very sincere" and "very consistent" views on race?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Some lunatic advised people, "If someone enters your office shooting, hide. If you need to defend yourself, grab a pair of scissors."

I would advise people to give up their weapons, be they of the "assault" variety or otherwise, the day the Secret Service arms themselves with scissors instead of firearms. Even then, I would advise them to do so with great care and forethought and then forget about it. This administration wants citizens disarmed, plain and simple. I don't give a damn what they say, we all know "truth" is one of their major, overriding weak points.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
He was chosen to fit Feinstein's agenda the same way the Fluke was chosen to fit the agenda. What did anyone expect? A fair hearing?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All