Skip to comments.3 Facts Gun Grabbers Forgot When Drafting the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017
Posted on 11/10/2017 1:51:49 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Every so often a ridiculous gun bill is introduced. Most of us gun rights activists roll our eyes and sigh. Gun control advocates who write these pieces of legislation know absolutely nothing about firearms yet theyre trying to tell us what kind of guns we should and should not own, what kind of attachments are acceptable and how many rounds are sufficient.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), along with her clan of Democratic cohorts, on Wednesday introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 as a means of addressing mass shootings.
This bill wont stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004, Feinstein said in a statement. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but weve got to start somewhere.
Of course, there are some problems with the proposed ban:
3. The potential for Supreme Court action.
The most troubling aspect of this piece of legislation: the number of very specific gun makes and models that are listed. Two hundred and five to be matter-of-fact.
If this piece of legislation were to pass which is very, very unlikely firearms manufacturers could have a class action lawsuit on their hands. Because the Assault Weapons Ban bill lists specific makes and models, gun manufacturers could make the argument that their individual products are being targeted.
This could be a First Amendment case because, after all, this could limit someones expression of free speech, Second Amendment expert and Constitutional lawyer Dave Hardy told Townhall.
According to Hardy, if this bill were to pass, gun manufacturers could sidestep the legislation because individual makes and models are listed.
Anyone can make a product that resembles an AR-15 and stamp it an AR-16, Hardy said.
In other words, firearms manufacturers could produce the same product and completely rename it and they would be well within their legal rights.
2. The lack of enforcement.
One of the bills main goals is to limit high capacity magazines, which holds more than 10 rounds.
That brings me to this question: how would the federal government enforce this? Would they send local police departments in to do a search of every gun owners property? Since we dont register our magazines and no database exists to track them, how does the government know if I own a high capacity magazine?
1. Meeting the demand elsewhere.
While it sounds great on paper to limit what kind of firearms the average person owns as a means of ending mass shootings, theres just one big problem: when theres a demand, theres a market.
If people want to carry out a mass shooting, theyre going to do whatever they deem necessary in order to make their vision become a reality. One of the most common ways to do that is to utilize 3D printers. People have been caught printing lower receivers for AR-15s, as well as magazines, bump-fire stocks and grenade launchers.
Although gun control advocates are quick to tout their positions popularity amongst the average American, they often forget they lack the votes that would be needed for a gun control bill to pass Congress."
This is an attempt to gain publicity because of the Vegas and Texas church shootings, Hardy said. But theyre [gun control advocates] are having more problems pushing this bill because the guy who shot down the [Texas] shooter used an AR-style rifle.
Its obvious that this piece of legislation was written by a group of people who flipped through a gun magazine and picked out pictures of the scariest looking guns. How many of these senators have seen these firearms in person, let alone shot a gun?
Just remember: you and I are supposed to defend our own life while our legislators in Washington sit back and have armed security guards handle their safety.
You might think that they would invest a weekend or two boning up on the subject before plunging into the deep end.
Here is a woman proposing a law restricting magazine capacities - but she is so poorly informed that she thinks gun magazines
are like birth control pill dispensers - you use the contents one by one then toss the empty container away.
“People have been caught printing lower receivers for AR-15s,....”
Huh? Perfectly legal to make your own “lower”. Just be careful who the “owner” is.
Maybe what we really need is a law against democrats eating their own.
Yes, sadly, the appalling ignorance these representatives display on the fun issue is pretty much standard across the board on most subjects. The only thing they are expert on is counting votes and getting elected.
So. That hasn't stopped other states like NJ and CA from mentioning specific firearms on their "banned" list, and the courts have not come to the rescue for them. So
“I’m always amazed at the lack of knowledge and insight that most authors and supporters of gun control bills have about the subject matter.
Most seem to have no experience guns and ammunition and have little factual knowledge about the gun/ammo industries or the 2nd amendment”
Yeh, here we go, Ugly Gun Law again....
While I agree with the writers issues, posting the obvious only assists those who prepare and write such bills. Don’t give them any help or suggestions as they forge on trying to disarm all of us.
“People have been caught printing lower receivers for AR-15s, as well as magazines, bump-fire stocks and grenade launchers.”
Maryland has a whole list of Banned firearms too.
The buffoons in the General Asylum shoved through a ban on “assault rifles” a few years ago, but the amazingly stupid legislators allow you to purchase a HBar rifle (AR lower with a heavier barrel.
So the lighter barrel is a lean, mean killing machine that instantly forces the user to have murderous intentions, but 1 more pound of steel in the barrel is a regular unregulated rifle.
It’s illegal to sell 30 round magazines. They are not illegal to own. Within an hour, I can get to two other states and buy all I want. A third state in 90 minutes and a fourth in two hours.
But the mental midgets walked away with their law confident that they “did something.”
Of course, it’s meaningless for me. For some stupid reason, I had the desire to take my gun collection out for a boat ride during a storm and lost them all in the Bay.
It’s only drunk driving, when there’s a drunk behind the wheel. Banning Camaros and Range Rovers won’t prevent it.
These people are beyond insane!
It’s the same bill Dianne Feinstein drafted a few years ago.
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.
Anyone who tries to violate this is doomed to cease biological functionns infringed.
They seem to have knack for accumulating wealth, no matter how stupid they are.
***to limit high capacity magazines, which holds more than 10 rounds. ***
I saw an old NCIS show not long ago that showed their firearm magazine close up. The first thing I noticed was these “government agents” were using magazines modified to 10 rounds.
***The guy snapped and killed two of his tormentors. ***
I have read that the guy who snapped was also a coordinator for Handgun Control Inc, now the Brady Center. Guns for me, but not for thee.
My son bought a high capacity magazine for my SKS. I was so frightened of it that I locked it in a box and put it in the attic of the garage. I check it every few weeks to make sure it hasn’t escaped.
Back during the Clinton AW ban, I saw lots of citizens with 30 round magazines stamped For “Police Use Only”.
She probably has a slew of such bills ready to bring out after a killing to try and pass something.
Remember when California shelved their AW ban bill because of no support? Then they released Pat Purdy from a mental institution, allowed him to pass background and waiting periods to buy a handgun, a rifle out of state, then he shot up the Stockton schoolyard.
The bill bill was swiftly brought out and passed before opposition could be mounted against it.
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.