Posted on 09/16/2019 12:13:21 PM PDT by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
Beto O’Rourke, a Texas Democrat and presidential hopeful, recently made the comment, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” O’rourke declared this striking, new campaign promise of a mandatory gun buy-back during an impassioned plea made at the last Democratic presidential debate. O’rourke was asked by the debate moderator what he would do about gun control if elected President.
The only problem with the congressman’s promise is that it’ll never happen. Here’s why:
Most Americans Won’t Comply
A simple truth provides a rather large hurdle for Mr. O’rourke’s ambitions: Many Americans simply don’t like the government telling them they need to give something up (also see: “Prohibition”). But we don’t need to look back to the 1920’s to see this is true:
When Connecticut in 2013 required all AR-15 owners to register their weapons as “assault weapons”, just 11% of residents complied. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said at the time that it estimated there were likely 350,000 residents who had “assault weapons” as of late 2013.
Yet the Connecticut State Police said they only received 41,347 weapon registration applications. The same noncompliance occurred at an even greater rate in New York in 2014. In April of that year, the state’s SAFE Act required AR-15s to be registered as assault weapons, too. Yet out of nearly 1 million gun owners who owned a black rifle, just under 44,000 willingly registered. That’s a compliance rate of around 4%.
And consider that this noncompliance is a response to mere registration. Never mind outright confiscation.
Police Probably Won’t Enforce the Law, Anyway
Much to the chagrin of politicians, American law enforcement officers don’t like to enforce laws they personally find unconstitutional. Widespread opposition to the SAFE Act’s new requirements was so great in New York, many officers simply refused to arrest gun owners in the state:
“According to statistics compiled by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services, there have been just 11 arrests for failure to register an otherwise-legal assault weapon since the SAFE Act took effect in March 2013 and 62 for possession of a large capacity magazine. In Ulster County, where 463 assault weapons have been registered, there have been just three arrests for possession of large-capacity magazines and none for failure to register an assault weapon,” Hudson Valley One reports. New York County Sheriff Paul VanBlarcum has been a vocal critic of the law, remarking, “We’re a rural county with a lot of gun enthusiasts… We are not actively out looking to enforce any aspect of the SAFE Act.”
Many Sheriffs across the nation have taken similar stances against gun control. When asked about his own duty to enforce the law and new gun control, Sheriff Mike Lewis of Maryland said, “State police and highway patrol get their orders from the governor. I get my orders from the citizens in this county.” We can pull many more examples of officers siding with the Second Amendment, but we don’t need to. Even if every uniformed officer in the nation willfully complied with a federal gun buyback, the program would fail.
Why, you ask?
There are Over 20 Million AR-15s in America
Yes, that’s 20 million sporting rifles, according to the NSSF last year. The number is probably much higher (we’ll explain why shortly). This figure won’t just grow, it’ll accelerate as the nation gets closer to the 2020 election. In fact, every 1 in 10 weapons produced each year in America is already a modern sporting rifle built on the AR-15 platform. Americans have now purchased almost as many black rifles as they have Nintendo gaming consoles.
But to date, no politician has provided an answer to how they’ll plan on remove 20 million rifles from the American gun market – or the black market. And voluntary gun buybacks are popular but ineffective, experts say. Data says buyback campaigns usually end up capturing hunting rifles and old revolvers, not modern rifles. A buyback in Tucson, Arizona, collected about 200 firearms, many of them old or inoperable, in exchange for about $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards. Just a few hundred feet away, gun dealers set up tables and offered cash for any guns in good enough condition to resell.
The “Common Use” Argument Probably Isn’t Over
The Second Amendment was created for one purpose, and the Supreme Court agrees with this interpretation: To allow the American citizenry to remain armed, as a collective militia, in defense of America as a free state. In District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote in 2008 that outright banning handguns in the home violated the Second Amendment:
“The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”
Scalia also writes in the same ruling: “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Importantly, Scalia affirms that the Miller ruling applies to the consideration of this handgun ban: That a weapon in common use at the time can’t be banned. He also says that “dangerous and unusual weapons” can’t receive the same constitutional protection. All these arguments can be made quite easily for the AR-15: It’s in common use. It’s the most popular rifle bought and sold in America, used for hunting, competition shooting, and personal defense. It cannot be defined as dangerous and unusual.
There are Many More Black Rifles in Circulation
Just last year, Federal Bill H. R. 7115 was introduced to the House of Representatives. This bill has stalled since, but it calls for banning the import and sale of “certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications, to require homemade firearms to have serial numbers, and for other purposes.”
In 1968, the Gun Control Act affirmed one right that complements the Second Amendment: The right to build a gun at home, without having to deal with any paperwork or government agency. It’s completely legal to do, and hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of gun owners have purchased these exact AR-15 kits and 80% lower receivers for as long as they’ve been on the market. Building a weapon at home is legal, but the finished firearm doesn’t require a serial number, and the owner need not submit to a background check or FFL paperwork filings. The result is a weapon that is technically “off the books” – even by manufacturers.
Because the unfinished firearm kits aren’t legally considered guns, manufacturers don’t have to serialize and record their production. Kits and receiver blanks like these can be shipped directly to the consumer, making their tracking (and proposed confiscation) virtually impossible.
Banning AR-15s Won’t Do Anything to Stop Violence
Even though there are over 20 million known AR-15s in the U.S., they comprise just a fraction of the guns owned by Americans. In fact, the American population now officially owns over half the world’s guns – that’s over 400 million firearms.
While the AR-15 has been used in multiple mass shootings, banning the modern sporting rifle won’t reduce such shootings. Just like we saw in Virginia, mass shooters will use handguns, shotguns, and any other weapon available to them. That doesn’t just include firearms. In fact, focusing on guns is the wrong answer entirely, experts say. Many of the world’s most deadly mass killings are carried out with weapons that aren’t firearms.
Beto O'rourke certainly made an impassioned claim to rid America of AR-15s. In this case, it appears passion has superseded many facts.
We need to sharpen our arguments, on the merits, The Founding Fathers would have had no problem, tearing the arguments of intellectual jokes like Beto O'Rourke, apart. Use the Left's campaign against them at every opportunity!
Clowns like O'Rourke can be used as foils, to our advantage!
For those states that have registration, including rules to report lost, sold or stolen firearms, I could see them attaching pay checks, putting liens on houses, garnishing wages, withholding SocSec payments, etc.
It wasn’t jail that put the damper on Operation Rescue, it was the FACE Act that allowed the pro-abort machinery to go after assets.
Beto spilled the beans. Schumer is cursing him for queering the Dems’ push for a “deal” with Trump. Timing couldn’t be worse.
PDJT knows in spades that any compromise on guns now will doom his reelection.
Let me share this other reason why it won’t happen.
Each year, one of the largest armed forces on the planet descend upon Minnesota.
That force is estimated to be about 500,000 strong, highly skilled and understanding the logistics of being in the frozen forest, as they take nearly 200,000 deer out of the forest with high powered arms.
Multiply that number across the United States and that is what any givernment forces would face down.
Oh, across the United States the total number of armed Law Enforcement Officers number’s only about 1,000,000
They would be severely out gunned and outnumbered....
If “they” banned AR-15s, would not someone just make an AR-16?
Yup.
As I’ve put it for years:
The Unorganized Militia of the USA engages in live-fire live-target war games every year.
Some 18,000,000 autonomous snipers, each self-equipped with long-range weapons, camouflage, mapping, communications, survival gear, etc take down targets on their own initiative, with only a cursory notification to the gov’t.
“Operation Deer Season” fields by far the largest army on the planet.
Off the field, participants infiltrate the nation at large, with few advertising their unique set of skills.
American law enforcement officers don’t like to enforce laws they personally find unconstitutional.....I’ll have to challenge that one sentence....I think it should read: Most American law enforcement officers don’t like to enforce laws they personally find uncostitutional, unless they know they have some type protection against prosecution. IE, if NY passes the SAFE ACT, they arrest someone for violating it, and then later the Act is declared unconstitutional, they can’t be sued for anything.
Watch the video of the cops in the unit in Seattle that are responsible for confiscating guns under their Red Flag laws. They seem a bit too eager, but that’s just me.
Couple of things to remember......
When Law Enforcement has an AR15, it is called a, Patrol Rifle. When you and I have one, it is called an, Assault Rifle.
I’ll confidently say that the very, very large majority of departments that have rifle programs, will regulate who can carry what. The SWAT guys, more than likely will be allowed to get an M4(full auto capable), while the rest of the department will get AR15s(semi only).
The Democrats say that there’s no way the US can catch and deport 11 million illegal aliens. But that same Democrat can go around and confiscate 20 million AR15s.
The call for “ban AR15s” would be reworked into a general ban on semiautomatic rifles accepting unlimited-size magazines, plus a ban on magazines over 5-10 rounds.
“AR15” is just the current colloquial term being abused. Those abusing it don’t really know, nor care, what it is precisely.
One of the lessons of the last “assault weapons ban” was that, indeed, product lines could be minimally modified into a different product with a different name, bypassing prohibitions on name + cosmetics.
“Importantly, Scalia affirms that the Miller ruling applies to the consideration of this handgun ban: That a weapon in common use at the time can’t be banned. He also says that “dangerous and unusual weapons” can’t receive the same constitutional protection.”
So, using Scalia’s argument, one couldn’t challenge the 1934 NFA and the 1986 FOPA successfully because the firearms at issue were/are unusual. But they are unusual BECAUSE OF THOSE LAWS. That’s a circular argument.
Further, the 2nd Amendment says that the “right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed” [emphasis added]. Nothing about “unusual” or “dangerous” arms being subject to infringement there (and what weapon ISN’T dangerous? Isn’t that the point of the thing?). No infringements allowed, not even if they sound reasonable - the language is crystal clear.
Finally, there is the power that Congress has in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Well, most reading this will say “WTF are those? Never heard of the beast.” It is Congressional authorization for civilians (individually or in groups, as Congress decides) to enter into combat with enemy forces during time of war. Well, go back to the late 1700s or early 1800s - Letters of Marque and Reprisal were granted to wealthy ship owners to combat the British and others (and hundreds were granted during the War of 1812). How, pray tell, does one combat a British warship with just ships of one’s own (i.e. without weaponry)? Well, you can’t. It was known to all, and accepted by all, that private individuals could and did own cannon - many of them, in some cases. Cannon were, then, the ultimate weapon, the equivalent of a WMD today. So the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the Congress will have a population armed with weapons capable of taking on enemy forces, so that it can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal if the need ever arises, and have some assurance that it wasn’t simply sending American citizens to an early death as cannon fodder for enemy forces. So, if Bill Gates wanted to buy a carrier task force and equip it with the latest aircraft and missiles, he should be able to do so under the 2nd Amendment...and this would strengthen the country.
Don’t like the 2nd, or the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause? OK, fine - then repeal them the right way, not by asserting meanings and restrictions in court that were never intended by the original drafters of them.
Scalia did this, I assume, because that was the most that he could get away with and still have a win for the 2nd Amendment. Get rid of Ruth Buzzi, and replace her with a true Constitutionalist, and we might have a shot at repealing the NFA and the hideous provision in the 1986 FOPA.
To keep it short n’ sweet: Thank you for summarizing many of the points I simply couldn’t make in this, for brevity. The circular argument, the NFA (don’t even get me started on how the tax stamp was *supposed* to go, until it thankfully was reduced), and the idea that a weapon being “dangerous” should partially constitute a consideration of banning it. Ridiculous.
I have a couple guns here and there. Not interested in getting too specific. I have all kinds of rifles and shotguns and never had much interest in purchasing a black rifle.
HOWEVER.....after listening to all this nonsense from the leftist socialist party, especially that idiot Betoff.....I think I’m gonna go out and buy a couple. I don’t like pajama boys disregarding the law and the constitution. FUBetoff
A ban would operate the same as SAFE in NY.
Yes there would be little compliance. Thing is, you’d not be able to take it in public (range, hunting, shows, etc) for fear of narc or arrest, selling it would make people skittish, and were the police to discover you with it for any reason you’d face harsh penalties. Police may be reluctant to enforce, but sometimes they just can’t avoid it (”sorry, sucks to be you, I can’t not press charges”).
A legal challenge would take years to percolate thru the courts, as we try to find “perfect plaintiffs” and high-priced lawyers and construct an unassailable case, all while risking an outright criminal lamely making the same case as a Hail Mary ploy by a shady/ignorant lawyer.
Goal would be to “chill” the right, discouraging people from open exercise thereof with quiet attrition reducing ownership via sporadic arrest, death, malfunction, market shrinkage, and outright giving up.
What they’re not expecting is a not-trivial number of hardcore fringe cases going hunting. The few that might are hardcore communists quite willing to leverage that for The Revolution.
_Heller_ had a footnote that amounted to “y’all haven’t asked about M16s specifically, and things will get very interesting when you do.”
I’m hitting the ‘Like’ button on your post. Really.
Thing is, you’d not be able to take it in public ...... that is probably my biggest concern with all of this, outside of them coming to my house to try and take it. I have plenty of guns for one person, but I really enjoy shooting my AR. I think it’s fun. I have other stuff to shoot but, without getting too nerdy on ‘gun stuff’, between ammo prices, ease of use, recoil, size, weight, they’re just fun to play with.
A traffic stop for no signal or complete cessation of movement at a stop sign and it’s gone.
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.