House panel requests gun manufacturers testimony

D

DaleA

New member
Apparently the House of Representatives is looking into the role gun manufacturers play in the 'gun violence' problem.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday requested testimony from executives at three major gun manufacturers, Daniel Defense, S&W and Ruger, at a hearing later this month as part of the panel’s investigation into the [firearms] industry.
Click to expand...

The reception the manufactures will face if they decide to testify in front of the committee might be gleaned from these two quotes. The bold emphasis is my own doing.

“As the chief executive officer of a major firearms manufacturer that sells millions of assault weapons, your testimony is crucial to understand why your company continues to sell and market these weapons to civilians, what steps your company plans to take to protect the public and what additional reforms are needed to prevent further deaths from your products,” Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote in the letters, which the committee released publicly on Thursday.
Click to expand...

In the new round of letters sent Wednesday, first reported by The Washington Post, Maloney told the three executives that the information they provided “heightened the committee’s concern” that the manufacturers were continuing to profit from the sale and marketing of “weapons of war” despite their harm.
Click to expand...

There are a myriad of problems facing this country and IMhO this committee is just virtue signaling and wasting time, money and efforts when they could possibly be doing something contructive to help their constituents AND THEY ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS!!!

Does anybody think the firearms manufacturers should show up to testify?

Maybe they should to get their viewpoint out to the public but it's obvious what the tone of the committee is.

The link to the story about the committee is here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=58be39f179c248e4ad190da2d1ff7f7d
 
If they are subpoenaed, they have to show up. If they are just asked, they can, if they want tell the house panel to go pound sand.

From what was quoted that the House members wrote, (and without additional emphasis) it's very clear the gunmakers are not going to be treated fairly and will almost certainly be accused of wrongdoing and possibly actual evil, despite full compliance with all existing laws.

If things go as I suspect, anyone who shows up from the "requested" firms will find themselves and their employers involved in a witch hunt of accusations of everything imaginable and probably some things I can't even imagine.

It does concern me that there will, no doubt, be people in the gun industry who will advocate for appeasement in order to stay in business.

History shows us, time, and time, and time again that while appeasement may or may not work in the short term, it NEVER works in the long term.

Personally, I think its a fools errand to try to make the people who already hate you, like you a little more...

I don't know if it was mentioned anywhere in the letters from Congress, but nowhere in the quoted text was there any mention of criminal misuse, only mention of the harm "these weapons cause".

I'll never understand how people with the education levels we have today (and even in Congress) can cling to the dogma that inanimate objects cause human behavior with a fanaticism that would make a Spanish Inquisitioner proud of their devotion to the cause...:rolleyes:
 
In the new round of letters sent Wednesday, first reported by The Washington Post, Maloney told the three executives that the information they provided “heightened the committee’s concern” that the manufacturers were continuing to profit from the sale and marketing of “weapons of war” despite their harm.
Click to expand...

Do Daniel Defense, S&W and Ruger have any current contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense, or any foreign military contracts? If not, they aren't making any "weapons of war," and if they are making weapons for any nation's military, are they selling the same firearms to civilians?

As to "assault weapons," how many states currently have definitions of "assault weapon" in their statutes? I believe most do not, and those that do have definitions don't even agree on what constitutes an "assault weapon." I know people who owned garden variety semi-automatic rifles for years. Then one day the state changed its definition and their semi-automatic rifles suddenly became "assault weapons." So who made those assault weapons -- Olympic Arms, or the state legislature?
 
The Senate is doing the same thing with freight carriers who transport firearms. They recently sent obnoxious letters to several shippers claiming,

lax shipping security measures are contributing to the epidemic of gun violence in this country by allowing criminals to use stolen firearms to commit crimes.
Click to expand...

If they're smart, they won't even respond. If they're subpoenaed, they should just send a lawyer. This isn't an attempt to address the problem; they just want someone from the "gun lobby" to sit in a chair while people like Maloney shout at them.
 
by allowing criminals to use stolen firearms to commit crimes.
Click to expand...

Just as a point of language, if you allow something, how can it be a crime?? Isn't the base definition of a crime, something that isn't allowed?? :rolleyes:

I recall something from long ago, back in the 70s, I think, something like $6 million worth of Winchesters were stolen off a loading dock in Chicago....

Seems like the govt required large red letters stating "FIREARM" might have had something to do with it....

So, let's get this straight, Congress just passed a gun control law, and NOW they are having a panel looking to get "the facts"????? :eek:

"weapons of war" ?? rather than argue that if they're not military contract they're not weapons of war, why not just tell them to read Tench Coxe??

I will agree that weapons of war do not belong on our streets. PEOPLE shooting people with ANYTHING do not belong on our streets.
Weapons of war DO belong in our hands, some of the Founders explicitly stated so.


I know people who owned garden variety semi-automatic rifles for years. Then one day the state changed its definition and their semi-automatic rifles suddenly became "assault weapons." So who made those assault weapons -- Olympic Arms, or the state legislature?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. The Marlin model 60, a semi auto .22LR with a fixed tube magazine became a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in my state a few years ago. EVERY semi auto rifle in the state (without regard to age, caliber, or anything other than being a semi auto rifle) became a "Semiautomatic assault rifle" with the passage of a law redefining them as such.

SO, who made them that? Not Marlin, or any other maker, who made a rifle, the STATE made them "semiautomatic assault rifles" simply by writing and passing a new definition.

Seems to me that giving the government the authority to define what words mean hasn't turned out to be the best possible thing.....:rolleyes:
 
44 AMP said:
"weapons of war" ?? rather than argue that if they're not military contract they're not weapons of war, why not just tell them to read Tench Coxe??

I will agree that weapons of war do not belong on our streets. PEOPLE shooting people with ANYTHING do not belong on our streets.
Weapons of war DO belong in our hands, some of the Founders explicitly stated so.
Click to expand...
Why not tell them to read Tench Coxe? Because telling them to read Tench Coxe would be my argument for why civilians should be allowed to own M16s, M4s, SAWs, and .50 caliber machine guns -- without a tax stamp.

The point is that the politicians and their co-conspirators in the media continue to refer to semi-automatic AR-15s as "weapons of war" in order to cause the general populace to think that our neutered, SEMI-automatic firearms are the same as and functionally indistinguishable from FULL-automatic military "weapons of war." Remembering that "he who controls the language controls the debate," I always try to address such weasel-word abuse of the language when I encounter it.

AR-15 = semi-automatic, civilian, sporting firearm

M16 = fully-automatic, military, "weapon of war." I should know -- I carried an M16 in Vietnam. (So did you, 44 AMP, IIRC.)
 
I carried the rifle I was assigned, In the units I was in, that was an M16A1.

I handled, inspected, and repaired several THOUSAND M16s and M16A1s during my time as a small arms repairman. (and, fwiw, none of them said "Mattel" on them, anywhere...:rolleyes:)

The M16A2 was just being introduced when I was a short two digit Midget, and I never saw one in my unit in Germany at the time.

A small point of order, here, and one sure to be lost on the antis. The M16/M16AA1 are not only full auto. They are select fire. Safe, semi, OR full auto, depending on the position of the switch.

The ATF has no provision for select fire, or for "assault rifle". If it fires full auto, the gun is legally classified as a full auto firearm (aka "machine gun") no matter what (if anything) else it does.
 
How this should be going:

“As the chief executive officer of a major law enforcement agency that is charged with protecting and serving, your testimony is crucial to understand why your taxpayer funded agency continues to not protect civilians, especially children, what steps your agency plans to take to protect the public and what additional reforms are needed to prevent further deaths from your inaction”
 
“As the chief executive officer of a major law enforcement agency that is charged with protecting and serving, your testimony is crucial to understand why your taxpayer funded agency continues to not protect civilians,......
Click to expand...

That's the way many of us think it should be going, but it almost certainly won't...

There is a legal line, drawn many years ago about the police and their duty and responsibility. And, essentially, that line says the police have a responsibility to protect the general public, and not any specific individuals.

I suspect that IF any LEOrg gets called on the carpet over their failures, the administrators will be "horrified", and promise to come up with new plans and methods to do "better".

And then, we will return to life as we know it, today....
only with MORE gun control......:rolleyes:
 
Want to end "gun violence" you need to eliminate criminals from walking the street
Click to expand...

while i do believe that would have a major impact, reducing the number of people shot, day in and day out, I feel the proper way to end "gun violence' is to slap the shizznit out of any and everyone STUPID enough to use that term.

Repeatedly....

and if they're an elected official, the "slap violence" should continue, until you get tired....:rolleyes:

Of course, physically doing that would be a crime, so I must refrain. But dang if they don't make me WANT to, when they say it....

It is a made up term, crafted to make people think that the gun is the problem. not the person using it.

It is, to borrow a line from YELLOWBEARD 's Cmmdr Clement..."what we in the Royal Navy call ...a LIE!."

The fact that everyone is repeating it, without a moment's thought about how stupid, inaccurate and deceitful the term is, makes it even worse...

welcome to the new age, where terms don't have to be correct only popular...:mad:
 
Worst criminal sentencing ever?

Want to end "gun violence" you need to eliminate criminals from walking the street.
Click to expand...

What a concept! It might be tried sometime, somewhere but probably not in the Twin Cities, MN where I live.

A twenty year old guy uses a handgun and fires three rounds into a car with people in it and is sentenced to:
FOUR MONTHS
and that's four months house arrest or work release---this person is NOT 'off the streets'.

Ramsey County Judge Joy D. Bartscher handed down that sentence in June 2022.

Someone suggested we have a contest, "How Many Laws Did He Break" to really bring home the point but that never got off the ground.

It's almost unbelieveable that this happened, especially in today's 'gun violence' climate and especially when it was brought before the judge that there were two children in the car ages 4 years and 1 year. (Goodness!!! Where are the 'for the children' folk?)

You can just do a Google search for the name of the shooter, Jacob Savon Gunn, (and no this is not satire 'Gunn' is his name) or follow this link to the article about the sentencing here:

https://www.kare11.com/article/news...rison/89-58b1c68c-c1f3-4bc8-9a6f-f483367bd493

or here:

https://theminnesotasun.com/2022/06...hot-at-car-with-kids-inside-gets-four-months/
 
Last edited:
I am disturbed by the term "Weapons of war" being thrown around these days by those who think we need to control guns. They imply that our founding fathers did not envision the guns of today when the constitution was written. I would remind them that in the 1700s muzzle loaders were the "weapons of war" and the word "arms" made no distinction as to type or function.

NRA Benefactor Golden Eagle
 
in today's news, in CA, a guy ON PAROLE, WEARING AN ANKLE MONITOR, robbed a cell phone store AT GUNPOINT!

Fortunately, he didn't shoot anyone.....

Still, one has to wonder, maybe the best solution is not to ban guns, but to lock up criminals, AND KEEP THEM THERE....

wonder how long it will be before that guy gets parole, AGAIN???:rolleyes:
 
Today's news, a BIT more truthful, perhaps???
:rolleyes:


Last week,, (when this tread was started) the news reported that the House was asking for testimony as "part of its investigation into the firearms industry".

TODAY, the news says the House is asking for testimony because it is going to consider a bill to ban assault weapons, next week.

Surprise!! Surprise! Surprise?? :rolleyes:
 
TODAY, the news says the House is asking for testimony because it is going to consider a bill to ban assault weapons, next week.
Click to expand...

They're blowing smoke. They want their base to believe last month's legislation indicates some sort of "momentum." It does not.

They can propose whatever they want. It might clear committee. It might even pass the House with a bare majority if they rush it. But there's no way it gets 60 votes in the Senate, so it's just more of "look, we're doing something" virtue signaling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top