Connect with us

Guns

Police Groups Slam Beto O’Rourke for His Claims Police Will Confiscate Guns

Several police groups say Beto O’Rourke’s gun confiscation plan is “ridiculous,” and unconstitutional, and even say he is a hypocrite over the plan.

Published

on

Several police groups say Beto O’Rourke’s gun confiscation plan is “ridiculous,” and unconstitutional, and even say he is a hypocrite over the plan.

Texas Democrat Robert “Beto” O’Rourke has made a very big splash in the Democrat race for president by exclaiming that if he were to become president, he would send police door-to-door to confiscate America’s guns.

But now police organizations are finally speaking out and bashing O’Rourke in no uncertain terms for his policy idea.

As recently as Wednesday, O’Rourke insisted that he felt most Americans would “do the right thing” and freely hand over their guns to him if he were to become president. But he also said that his plan would include law enforcement actions for those who refused to do so. Police would be sent door-to-door to confiscate America’s guns.

Trending: President Trump Flips Another Liberal Court to a Conservative Majority

But leaders from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations, among others, told the Washington Free Beacon that O’Rourke’s plan is both unlawful and dangerous.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, told the Beacon that no president could even order local police to go door-to-door to confiscate guns because local cities govern their movements, not presidents.

“Further, any such legislation, if it passed, would no doubt be vigorously litigated with a view to its apparent inconsistency with the Second Amendment,” Pasco added.

AJ Louderback, the sheriff of Jackson County, Texas, said that O’Rourke’s order would not even be followed by many.

“I think he’s seriously misjudging the law enforcement response to what he wants to do,” Louderback said. “Many sheriffs would not comply with his plan.”

Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, agreed, and slammed O’Rourke’s lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s ironic that Beto O’Rourke, who was slamming police as ‘the new Jim Crow’ just a year ago, now finds a need for police when he wants to disarm individuals,” Johnson said. “Maybe poor Beto should spend less time live-streaming his visits to the dentist and attend a basics civics class instead. He’d be reminded that the very first law every police officer swears to uphold is the Constitution.”

Another police official who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak for his police organization slammed O’Rourke as a “hypocrite.”

“I find it really telling now that someone who attacked law enforcement, even calling them Jim Crow, for his convenience is perfectly fine with sending them off into harm’s way to collect AR-15s,” the representative said.

Looks like many police officers would refuse to go door-to-door to collect people’s guns, no matter who a president might think he is.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Guns

Gaffe-Prone Joe Utters Pure Gibberish on Gun Control in New Hampshire

Biden’s comments infer some hidden meaning in the Second Amendment that just isn’t there.

Published

on

If you’re going to speak on a subject as powerful and divisive as the Second Amendment, it would behoove you to do so eloquently and accurately.  After all, the language of the amendment itself is in no way unclear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

Those last four words seem to be the most troubling for Democrats, who have spent decades honing their infringement of the right to bear arms as a sort of backdoor-repeal of the amendment itself.  They fully understand that, in order to neuter the Second Amendment would bring great unrest and bloodshed to our nation, so, instead, they are working to make the ownership of a firearm as annoying and difficult as possible.

Former Vice President and current 2020 candidate Joe Biden understands this explicitly.  His latest attack on this inalienable right has the former Senator implying a whole lot about what the amendment doesn’t say, as opposed to what it does say.

During a Concord, New Hampshire, campaign stop Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden criticized the ownership of magazines that hold “100 clips.”

Ironically, leftists often refer to ammunition feeding devices as “clips” instead of magazines, but Biden used the word “clips” in place of bullets. He realized his mistake and corrected himself.

CSPAN published video from the campaign stop, where Biden said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but nobody says you can have a magazine with 100 clips in it.” He quickly added, “100 bullets in it.”

No, Joe’s right:  The Second Amendment doesn’t have any language in it restricting Americans’ right to gun ownership whatsoever.  Instead, the Democrats have taken it upon themselves to interject these ideas into the conversation again in hopes to making gun ownership far too frustrating to gain popularity.

 

Continue Reading

Guns

Police Chief in Detroit Issues Irrefutable Defense of Concealed Carry

Chief Craig’s message was simple, but stern.

Published

on

The Second Amendment has been consistently downgraded by decades of Democratic policy all across the country, and proponents of the inalienable right are now taking a stand.

In a world as wild as ours, in a time as uncertain as we are experiencing now, the ability to defend oneself from the evils of the world at large is paramount.  Politically, our nation is being torn asunder by egomaniacal infotainment barons and their quest for conflict.  Criminals in Democratically-ravaged locales such as Chicago are targeting law-abiding citizens at a record clip.

For the people of Detroit, their neighborhoods feel more the wild west than the rust belt.  That’s why one of the city’s most prominent authorities has come out in favor of the Second Amendment and, more specifically, the right to concealed carry.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig suggested concealed carry by law-abiding citizens “is about staying alive” during an October 30, 2019, interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Craig, a vocal advocate of concealed carry for self-defense, said, “There’s been research that shows criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police.”

He explained police are not ever-present, thus they usually arrive after a crime not during one: “By the time we’re called it’s usually after the fact, so we’re reacting to the crime.” But armed, law-abiding citizens can be present to act as the crime is unfolding.

The Police Chief broke it down sternly and succinctly.

Craig added, “I’m not advocating [vigilantism], but I’m also advocating not becoming a victim. This is about staying alive.”

Chief Craig has long been a vocal supporter of the right to bear arms and its effect on criminality, citing in 2015 his belief that concealed carry is also an important deterrent when it comes to terrorism.

 

Continue Reading

Guns

Korean War Vet has Guns Confiscated when Someone Claims He Made ‘Threat’

If you want a perfect example of why anti-gun, so-called “Red Flag” laws are a bad idea, the case of Korean War veteran Stephen Nichols fits the bill.

Published

on

If you want a perfect example of why anti-gun, so-called “Red Flag” laws are a bad idea, the case of Korean War veteran Stephen Nichols fits the bill.

On September 20, the 84-year-old school crossing guard who had a career in law enforcement and fought in the Korean War was overheard in a restaurant by a nosy waitress who claimed Nichols “made a threat” to a school.

This ignorant woman reported Nichols to the police. The police then immediately swept in, arrested the man, took away all his personal firearms, and then got him fired by the school he was working for.

It was ultimately determined that the nosy waitress misheard what Nichols said and he was released, and the school reversed its firing on October 11. However, he was not allowed to have his personal property back despite being guilty until proven innocent.

So, what happened?

A waitress at Linda Jean’s Restaurant in Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, “thought” she heard Nichols threaten to shoot up the school he worked for, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times.

What police determined was that while sitting with a friend in the restaurant, Nichols had said that his school’s resource officer (a security guard) often leaves his post and that someone could shoot up the school when he was absent. Nichols was not saying HE wanted to shoot up the school. He was saying that the security guard’s absence might beg someone to perpetrate such a crime.

In other words, no threat at all was made.

Yet, police swept in and deprived Mr. Nichols of his freedom, his property, his rights, and even his employment. All without any trials or investigations.

Note what happened here:

1). An American citizen was falsely accused.

2). He was incarcerated, had his home raided, had his personal property summarily confiscated, and he lost his job. All BEFORE any trials or investigations were conducted.

3). Only AFTER all this was he proven innocent.

4). And yet, the government still kept his property and demanded it be sold away from him!

Mr. Nichols was guilty until proven innocent and still had his rights violated.

THIS IS NOT AMERICA!

This is why “red flag” laws are dangerous, and un-American.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Guns

Beto Admits, If People Don’t Turn in Their Guns, He’ll Send Police to Take Them

Texan Beto O’Rourke admitted that if Americans don’t turn in their guns, he will send law enforcement door-to-door to confiscate them by force.

Published

on

During Tuesday night’s Democrat debates, Texan Beto O’Rourke admitted that if Americans don’t turn in their guns, he will send law enforcement door-to-door to confiscate them by force.

During the debate held in the battleground state of Ohio, 2020 democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke admitted that there would be “consequences from law enforcement” if Americans did not turn in their guns after his election to the White House.

O’Rourke’s admission came just after he insisted that once he is elected president, Americans would suddenly “do the right thing” and hand in their firearms all because he is such a great and caring guy.

However, O’Rourke has also admitted that there has to be teeth to his plan to eliminate the Second Amendment.

“There have to be consequences,” O’Rourke said Wednesday after MSNBC host Joe Scarborough pressed him on his policy. “In that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back, so that it cannot potentially be used against somebody else.”

O’Rourke has pushed his gun ban for months, and in last month’s debate he loudly exclaimed, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

For years Democrats have claimed that they would never go door-to-door to confiscate America’s guns, but this election has shattered that wink-and-nod claim liberals have always hidden behind.

At last a major Democrat candidate is openly admitted that, yes, Democrats want to confiscate our firearms.

Some may say that this is just O’Rourke’s blather and that Democrats still don’t support this extreme, anti-Constitutional effort. However, the lie to that is that no Democrats are forcefully denouncing O’Rourke’s policy plans.

No Democrats are assuring the country that O’Rourke’s idea is a crazy, outlier. Instead, they are silent.

Their silence speaks volumes.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Guns

Dick’s CEO Says They Destroyed $5M Worth Of Assault Rifles

This is an absolute failure of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Published

on

Dick's CEO Says They Destroyed $5M Worth Of Assault Rifles

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack told CBS News that his company destroyed $5 million worth of “assault-style rifles” to keep them out of private hands.

Ed Stack told CBS News during an interview that the millions of dollars worth of inventory was turned into scrap metal. “I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them.”

The Hill:

The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods says that after the company made the decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles, more than $5 million worth of the weapons were destroyed.

In an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday, Ed Stack said following the decision last year to stop offering assault-style rifles, the question of what to with the remaining inventory lingered.

“I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,'” Stack said, adding that the company turned $5 million worth of the weapons into scrap metal.

Dick’s made the decision to stop carrying the rifles following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., which left 17 dead and reignited the national conversation surrounding gun control.

“We found out that we sold this kid a shotgun,” Stack said. “That’s when I said, ‘We’re done.'” More

This is an absolute failure of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Now, if I was a stockholder of Dick’s Sporting Goods, I would be suing them for destroying profitable products for no good reason.

In November 2016, Dick’s stock was selling at just over $60/share. Today, it’s at $38/share, a huge loss. When companies start jumping on the SJW bandwagon, it’s time for investors to start walking.

Continue Reading

Guns

Liberals Celebrate Colt’s Ending Production of AR-15 — There’s Only One Problem

Liberals were celebrating thinking they achieved a victory when Colt Firearms Company announced it was ceasing its production of the AR-15. Only one problem.

Published

on

Uninformed liberals were celebrating all day on Thursday, imagining they achieved a victory when Colt Firearms Company announced it was ceasing production of its AR-15 for the civilian market. Only, there is one little problem for the gun haters: Colt didn’t make its decision because of them.

On Thursday, the virulent anti-gun group, March 4 Our Lives, put out a tweet celebrating the end of Colt’s AR rifle.

“You all. The firearm manufacturer, Colt is ending production of AR-15s due to lack of demand. This is real life. We’re winning,” these liars tweeted.

But little of what this anti-Constitution group tweeted was actually true.

The anti-gunners did not win anything. There is no “lack of demand” for the AR-15, and Colt didn’t actually stop making the rifle.

In fact, even the site that the anti-gun nut group linked to proves their claims to be false.

Colt did say that there is a lack of demand for the AR-15. But only for its version of the rifle. The likely reason for that is because Colt sells its civilian model of the rifle for over $1,000. Meanwhile, everyone else sells their models from between $500 and $900. Colt’s model is just overpriced and in a market where literally dozens of other manufacturers make the same basic firearm, Colt just wasn’t making enough money to justify the expense of production.

As the site the anti-gunners linked to said:

Colt released a statement on Thursday to clarify the decision, which was made because the company simply isn’t selling enough of the rifles in the civilian marketplace to continue devoting the resources into it — a pattern that may be attributed to Colt rifles’ $1,000+ price tag and a market supplied with lower priced competitors.

So, all that really happened was that Colt just simply dropped a low-selling product.

However, Colt will continue making the AR-15 for the law enforcement market. So, it isn’t ending the production of the rifle entirely.

So, the left won no victory here at all. But let’s not let facts get in the way.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Guns

‘Beto’ O’Rourke Caught Pushing Gun Confiscation with False Story About Ambulance Shortage

Published

on

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke flat out lied during Thursday’s Democrat debate when he attempted to push an emotional story of a Texas woman whose child died from an “assault weapon” shooting because there weren’t enough ambulances to get to her in time. And he used the false tale to push his idea of confiscating America’s guns.

During his comments on how he would confiscate American’s guns if he were to win the presidency, O’Rourke told a story of a 15-year-old boy who died after being shot with an “assault weapon.”

Here is what O’Rourke said:

When we see that being used against children, and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15, and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time, hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

But it turns out this ambulance story is entirely false.

KOSA reports:

The claim that there weren’t enough ambulances is false, according to information given to CBS7 by the City of Odessa.

The Odessa Fire Department arrived at Freedom Buick GMC Truck on 42nd Street 7 minutes and 21 seconds after Leilah Hernandez and her brother Nathan were reported shot to 911, according to the city.

An ambulance arrived about a minute later.

We’re told that all 30+ ambulances in Odessa were scrambled two Saturdays ago after the shooting started. Plus the City of Midland sent many over to assist.

Beto’s story was a total lie.

“Beto” also lied about AR-15s. The AR-15 was never invented for war. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any army anywhere in the world that has ever based its weapons systems on the AR-15. Not a single one.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Become an insider


Latest Articles

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Pin It on Pinterest