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.
It’s been a few years since _Heller_.
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.” Opinion proceeds to attempt dismissal of “tanks and bombers” as analogy to M16s and observing likely upholding of a ban on “dangerous and unusual weapons”, but nonetheless points to a path to overturning 922(o), precisely on grounds that an M16 _is_ “common” insofar as it’s the standard model for typical soldiers, and that for want of a $1 part it is practically indistinguishable from the very common AR16.
Another complication: NFA.
I have an “M4LE SBR” via NFA. Only difference between that & “AR15” is barrel length, over/under 15”.
BATFE differentiates non-NFA guns from NFA guns. Ergo, my “NFA AR15” (colloquially) would likely be exempt ... if it’s not, I expect to be on the first wave of raids.
When Gov. Florio of NJ shove a ban on “assault weapons” and mags over 15 rounds down our throats, that was the moment when I went out and started buying whatever I could that violated that law (in Pennsylvania). Heck, I even had 30-round magazines delivered to my office in NYC to bring home on the train (NYC was behind NJ in this area, for some reason that I don’t understand).
Say that I can’t have something that was legal before, and you’ve just created the modern day equivalent of a rum-runner. It’s my way of telling them to go piss up a rope.
Besides...WHY don’t they want me to have effective rifles? What are they planning to do? Those are rhetorical questions - my family history bears out that they want to imprison or kill anyone in opposition in any way whatsoever. I had dozens of relatives that were murdered by tyrannical regimes that didn’t let them have arms, that didn’t let them say, “NO!” Well, I’ve learned those lessons, and the end result is that I will not be murdered by my government for free.
any further firearms regs would have about as much chance of compliance as did prohibition
Even more so considering that a large portion of the law enforcement officers will come over to our side if it ever came down to an attempt to take our firearms by force. The majority of law enforcement are pro 2nd Amendment and would never participate in such a gun grab.
That said, I do want to thank Beto for once again being a big knucklehead. We are going to use him in campaign ads for years and years to come.
“American law enforcement officers don’t like to enforce laws they personally find unconstitutional.”
What they will do is make personal cop cameras ubiquitous and controlled by non-cop techs remotely. Then if you are cop and want to keep your job, you will have to enforce what is on the books even if you know it is wrong.
Freegards
In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, no LEOs came over to our side, and none refused orders to confiscate firearms. Even paramilitary / SWAT teams from other states participated and none of them sat it out.
What Happens When
Citizens Guns
Are Taken Away
From Ed Chenel
Australian Police Officer
12-9-5
Hi Yanks and Canadians - I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! (And criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won’t see this on the American /Canadian evening news or hear your government or members of the State Assembly amd Ottawa parliament disseminating this information.
The Australian experience proves it.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding public.
Take note Americans and Canadians before it’s too late!
https://rense.com/general69/guns.htm
37 of 62 Colorado sheriffs to sue over new gun laws (More Likely to Join) April 10, 2013
Well Beto, a short history lesson seems to be in order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVBeZkqDxU&t=18s
“A ban would operate the same as SAFE in NY.
Yes there would be little compliance.”
The real whole point of this from Atlas Shrugged:
“We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden.” (2.2.3.39)
Make us all criminals, increase their power.
Read and bookmarked...Thanks for posting that link...
Beta “Mexican Bob” O’Rourke might benefit from reading, but as Mark Twain said: “No amount of evidence will convince a fool.”...
the problem with the congressman’s thought pattern is this: This is not a gun ownership issue.
It’s a complete fubar’d failure of the social services culture to communicate and work with law enforcement.
Most of the shooters in recent memory were identified early on as nutters of the unhinged type. Kinder, gentler ain’t workin’ people.
***There are Over 20 Million AR-15s in America***
WOW! They have the lever action rifles beat by a long shot!
But don’t forget, California tried to sneak in a ban on large capacity lever action rifles in their first A-s-s-s-ault rifle ban. Got caught by Neal Knox, removed the lever action ban, then shelved the bill.
Then they released Pat Purdy from a mental institution, allowed him to buy guns, passing the waiting periods, he shot up the Stockton school, killing himself.
The bill was pulled out and passed so fast before any opposition could mounted against it.
Gun owners learned back in 1984, when the gun ban groups suddenly made a grab for the rifles, something they always said they would NEVER do.
They showed their hand, and we know we are always up against a stacked deck.
You really need to read the 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
i can think of hundreds of millions of reasons that this won’t happen.
Just bought 5 lower blanks from this website. Thanks for turning me onto them
Yeah, but this time, and I love repeating this,
“Beto spilled the beans”.
And not just once, but over and over. Not a Democrat disagreed, except to criticize him for committing a tactical blunder. I’m sure Schumer and Feinstein would like to punch his lights out.
Our position as gun rights supporters has been greatly strengthened. No more can they say, “Nobody wants to take away your guns!!”
And PDJT now knows in spades not to give an inch or lose his reelection. I’ve always believed that he will propose a Red Flag bill which punishes false accusers with prison and guarantees due process before any action is taken.
Dems will choke on those.
That what won’t happen?
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.