Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona Senator, Dr. Kelli Ward, acts to Remove Obsolete Weapons Bans
Gun Watch ^ | 25 February, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 02/27/2015 3:49:12 AM PST by marktwain


Arizona state Senator, Dr. Kelli Ward, added an amendment to a bill on restoration of civil rights.  The amendment would remove several obsolete and arcane weapons bans.  The bill, SB 1460, would add second amendment rights to civil rights that are restored when a person who had been convicted of a felony petitions a court for restoration of their rights.  From havasunews.com:

Her amendment to SB 1460 legalizes devices "made or adapted to muzzle the report of a firearm.'' Also gone would be prohibitions against any rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches, with no new minimum in its place.

Both can be legally possessed under federal law. But buyers must go through a more-intensive screening than the one required to purchase just any weapon.

And while she was at it, Ward got senators to provide preliminary approval to "nunchucks,'' essentially two or more sticks, clubs, bars or rods connected together to be used as a weapon.
The amendment would remove state bans on short barreled rifles and shotguns, on gun mufflers, and on nun-chucks.   There never was much logic to the bans.  Short barreled rifles and shotguns are essentially pistols made from rifles or shotguns.  Rifles, shotguns and pistols are all protected by the second amendment and the Arizona state constitution.

The ban on intermediate sized firearms originated in Michigan in 1931 after the state required licensing of all pistols.   It made sense if you were attempting to keep pistols out of the hands of black people, as many have suggested was the intent of pistol licensing in Michigan.  What would be the point of requiring people to ask permission to purchase a pistol, when they could buy a shotgun without permission, and turn it into a pistol in 15 minutes, with a hacksaw?

The federal government aped the ban in 1932, when it attempted to make pistols illegal for most citizens.  The ban on pistols failed, but the ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns made it into law, along with a ban on gun mufflers and machine guns.  No reason was ever given for the ban on gun mufflers, which are almost unrestricted in most of Europe.  Arizona adopted the federal ban, nearly verbatim, some years later.  I have not found a reason, but it was likely to protect the federal ban from court challenges.  If a person was charged under state law, they did not have standing to challenge the federal law.  That changed with the McDonald case that incorporated the second amendment to the states.  From a recent federal court case:
 Classifying one particular device as a "firearm silencer" is a relatively unimportant question in the grand scheme of federal firearm regulations. Indeed, it is difficult to determine what exactly Congress was concerned about in deciding to regulate silencers at the federal level.  See, e.g., P. Clark, Criminal  Use of Firearm Silencers, 8 W. CRIM. REVIEW 44, 48 (2007) ("The  1934  congressional debates [over what became the National Firearms Act] provide no explanation about why silencers were licensed."). In other words, the stakes here are low. This weighs against Chevron deference.
The ban on nun-chucks is even less logical.  It is a ban on two sticks joined by a rope or chain!  That ban likely came about as a result of the kung-fu movies in the 1980's.  It would not be the first time a ban was the result of fictional drama and hysterical overreaction.   Switchblade knives were banned from interstate commerce in 1958.   The ban was the result of yellow journalism and the play, West Side Story.  Arizona had the sense to avoid a state ban on knives that are easily opened with one hand.

People talk about having too many silly laws, about how innocent people are often caught up and prosecuted under laws that should never have been passed in the first place.

It is nice to see the Arizona legislature clearing out some dead wood.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: az; banglist; gunban; yellowjournalism
Second amendment supporters fighting to repeal stupid and evil weapons bans.
1 posted on 02/27/2015 3:49:12 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Kelli is a friend and, IMHO, the best and hardest working state legislator in the nation. I am hoping she will challenge McCain in 2016.


2 posted on 02/27/2015 4:16:41 AM PST by montag813 (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Why would Arizona have a ban on obsolete weapons?


3 posted on 02/27/2015 4:16:46 AM PST by WayneS (Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlin look like George Patton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Kelli needs to add in wording that there will be NO BAN on ammunition of ANY KIND. Odumbo is just now trying to ban 5.56 ammo used in the Ar-15 rifles. With a stroke of the pen, odumbo can and WILL ban any and all ammunition if he so desires, time to cut that bastard off at the pass BEFORE he strikes.


4 posted on 02/27/2015 4:21:41 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

“Why would Arizona have a ban on obsolete weapons?”

Because politicians fear the media much more than they respect logic or common sense.

All of these weapon bans were based on media hype and lies, designed to get legislation passed, to infringe on the second amendment.

(Yes, I understand your word play) Both meanings make sense, the sign if a good headline.


5 posted on 02/27/2015 4:36:49 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

6 posted on 02/27/2015 4:38:28 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not A Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You know what’s so stupid about banning suppressors on guns? Most of it is probably movie logic. The reality is, movies exaggerate how much a suppressor reduces the sound of a gunshot. Plus a little noise reduction is good for your ears, plus it is good for a distant neighbor not to hear something as loud when someone is doing rural target practice or hunting.


7 posted on 02/27/2015 4:43:27 AM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Teddy Roosevelt, while in his home in Oyster Bay, the lovable old money section of Long Island, NY, had a Winchester Model 94, made with a ‘detachable suppressor’, in response to his neighbors complaining about the rifle’s report, when he would sit on the porch, and dispatch gophers and groundhogs on the family property.


8 posted on 02/27/2015 5:12:51 AM PST by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

There are some interesting asides about “nunchuks” (Nunchaku) that are amusing. With rather nebulous origins in Okinawa, it is popularly thought to have been invented as a flail used to thresh rice or soybeans. However, in a very amusing note:

“Peasant-origin nunchaku proponents also suggest these innovators were not so much rebellious as attempting to be capable of a surprise defense against overzealous tax collectors’ visits gone bad, or other perilous scenarios for which they were otherwise perpetually unarmed.”

Sounds familiar.

In any event, when used properly the action of nunchaku is not disputed, as its motion creates impressive force delivered to a very small area, which can produce significant injury.


9 posted on 02/27/2015 5:13:34 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
...its motion creates impressive force delivered to a very small area, which can produce significant injury.

The same can be said for a bullet.

10 posted on 02/27/2015 6:17:20 AM PST by WayneS (Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlin look like George Patton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveA37

Stay focused on facts.
The M855 ban is NOT a general ban on 5.56 ammo, it is a re-classification of a very specific type of bullet built to military spec and having a steel penetrator (what the BATFE is incorrectly calling a “core”).
While it shouldn’t be banned at all, don’t go construing the ban as being on _all_ 5.56 ammo. The Obama can’t “with a stroke of a pen...ban any and all ammunition if he so desires” ... if he could, he would have already.
We’ve seen this coming for over a decade, it’s not a surprise. Lead & copper ammo will remain available, and we’ll see a serious court case over the difference between “core” vs “tip”, and whether the AP ban violates the 2nd Amendment - arguments we need to have and win.


11 posted on 02/27/2015 6:29:40 AM PST by ctdonath2 (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Except nunchaku can also easily deliver lots and lots of less than lethal injuries quickly as well, against both soft and hard targets. For example, used properly against the back of the thigh and you will give somebody one heck of a charley horse, that will turn into a painful knot and a heck of a bruise.

And, for those times when you want to send a message, not just kill, nunchaku can deliver a top to bottom, 360 degree of ouchy places.


12 posted on 02/27/2015 7:44:41 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Surely I’m not the only one who thinks all but the ones forbidding convicted felons from purchasing them are obsolete?

Heck, if you could put them on a list and delete the ones that were inspired by the boogieman in the closet, the list would probably be blank.


13 posted on 03/01/2015 8:59:45 AM PST by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be earned and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWB Patriot

You are correct.


14 posted on 03/01/2015 9:12:44 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson