Patel Gives Surprising Answer to Senator’s Question About Gun Ban

Surprising, and honestly, disappointing as well.

Kash Patel has been a pretty vocal Second Amendment supporter, even before he was named FBI director. He’s criticized the ATF for working to wipe out our right to keep and bear arms during the Biden administration, and drew criticism from some Democrats and anti-gun activists when he refused to say that background checks on gun sales were constitutional during his confirmation hearings. 

On Tuesday, however, Patel suggested that a ban on so-called assault weapons could be an effective way to curb violence. The comment came during Patel’s testimony on Capitol Hill, as he was being questioned by Sen. Amy Klobuchar. 

But, in another exchange between Patel and Klobuchar, the Minnesota Senator directly asked Patel about an assault weapons ban, and it was a surprising answer from a member of the Trump Administration.

“Senator, I think there are instances on this legislation that could prevent future attacks, but I’m not going to weigh in to the creation of legislation,” said Patel, at least sounding open to what many Democrats have been calling for after a campaign cycle and a summer filled with political violence.

I have a feeling that we’re going to see the first part of Patel’s response cited by gun control activists and anti-gun politicians in the future. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if his comment comes up during the special session that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said he’s calling in response to the shooting at a Minneapolis church that resulted in the murder of two children and injuries to several others. Minnesota media outlet WCCO is already using Patel’s remark as a way to prod other public safety officials into talking about a ban. 

Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt, speaking with WCCO’s Adam and Jordana on Tuesday, echoed the thoughts that a ban on high capacity assault-style weapons could help slow down the mass shootings.

“I don’t think a ban on assault rifles or high-powered magazines or anything like that will completely stop it,” said Witt. “But you can’t tell me that it won’t slow it down. You know, when we’re talking about law enforcement going to these shootings, and you’re talking about a matter of minutes sometimes, right? How many shots can be fired with an automatic assault rifle versus a handgun? It’s common sense.”

Either Witt is a partisan hack who’s intentionally misleading Minnesotans by conflating semi-automatic rifles with machine guns, or she’s a moron who doesn’t know the difference herself. I don’t think the sheriff is that dumb, especially given her 20+ years in law enforcement. Witt hasn’t been an especially vocal gun control advocate since she’s taken office, but she also hasn’t opposed the DFL’s gun control proposals since she was elected back in 2022. In fact, she was just one of a handful of sheriffs who didn’t speak out against the push for “universal” background checks and a “red flag” law, according to the MN Gun Owners Caucus. 

Witt is right about one thing, though. When seconds count, police are often minutes away. A hardware ban won’t stop twisted individuals from committing acts of violence, but an armed response will. In the absence of police, it’s everyday citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights who have a critical role to play. Instead of talking about banning commonly owned firearms, Witt should be talking about the need for more Minnesotans to bear arms in defense of themselves and others. 

As for Patel’s comment, I hope that the FBI director will walk them back as soon as possible. Banning semi-automatic rifles won’t stop future attacks. At best it would force those attackers to use other weapons, but he deadliest school shooting in the United States was carried out by someone using handguns, and just this year we saw a terrorist in New Orleans kill more than a dozen people (and injure more than 50 others) with his pickup truck. We can’t ban our way to safety, and Patel really should have pushed back against Klobuchar’s suggestion that a federal “assault weapon” ban would be useful (or constitutional). 

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Bearing Arms, we will stand up and fight for our Second Amendment rights. 

Help us continue to tell the truth about the fundamental importance of our right to keep and bear arms. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.