Bah. John Kerry is so 9/10.
Posted on 09/18/2004 11:33:05 AM PDT by forest
It is interesting to learn that I am legal again. Not that I was really concerned about it, that is. The old law was just slightly aggravating to me.
You see, I am the proud owner of an old M1 Carbine. As rifles go, it's just a small 30 caliber semi-automatic. It is not really great for most types of hunting, but very easy to carry and handle. Mine was especially easy to carry and handle because I changed the stock, and a few other little things, to improve its portability and quick shooting ability in the field.
The problem came a decade ago when some ignorant twits in Congress labeled rifles they thought looked mean as "assault rifles" and unconstitutionally banned them. And, as it happened, my little 30 caliber rifle, although handy as heck, just happened to look mean to the uninformed. Hence, it became illegal in that configuration.
Making it legal again was easy. All I did was change the stock back to the original and stopped using the large capacity magazines in public. This in no way made the rifle any less of a weapon. Nor was it any less deadly. But, I suppose, changing it back to the legal configuration, in some people's uninformed eyes, made the carbine look a little "kinder and gentler."
But, that's all over now. That silly assault weapons law is no more. My little carbine can get properly dressed for the field again.
Of course, crawling out of the woodwork came the anti-Second Amendment nuts. Sarah Brady appeared on the forged documents TV network last week saying the gun ban lapse was "purely political." And, of course, she blamed President Bush: "The real onus fell on President George W. Bush. He has exerted absolutely no leadership. We have a president and leadership in the House and Senate that simply do not want to face this."
Actually, Bush showed fine leadership in an election year. He publicly said he would sign another assault weapons ban, if Congress passed one -- knowing very well that not even Democrats in Congress would dare try any such thing this year. In effect, Bush stayed above that argument, as he should.
Not Kerry, though. Kerry used it as yet another topic to whine about. Speaking to a Washington Audience, Kerry said: "Today George Bush made the job of terrorists easier and made the job of America's law enforcement officers harder and that's just plain wrong." Then he mumbled something about having a $5 billion plan to fight crime.
There are a few interesting -- and inconvenient for Kerry -- facts about guns and crime. For the past decade or so states have been passing concealed carry laws. Therefore, in over 30 states, any adult without a criminal record can take a couple gun use classes and get a permit to carry. Many thousands of people have done just that, too.
Which means, many thousands of American citizens are legally walking around armed and trained in when and how (and when not) to use whatever they are carrying. Has anyone ever heard of these legally carrying citizens shooting up someplace inappropriately? It may have happened at some point, but it is certainly not common.
Fact is, the Justice Department reported that the nation's crime rate is steadily holding at the lowest levels since 1973.
No matter, though. Kerry outlined a $5 billion, 10-year anti-crime agenda. The Kerry cronies say the plan will cut crime by restoring the assault weapons ban, fund the COPS program better, ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies get access to the national terrorist lists, and increase scrutiny of purchases at gun shows. Kerry also mentioned enforcing existing gun laws and cracking down on interstate gun trafficking. Then, Kerry said that he can crack down on gang violence by increasing gang members' access to jobs, job training, school and drug rehabilitation.
Did we say that the nation's crime rate is down to a 30 year low? Yeah, we did.
What big government loving socialists like John Kerry cannot understand is that, as the number of armed citizens increases, crime decreases. That's because it's damned inconvenient for crooks to rob an armed citizen. And when a lot of people are carrying concealed, the bad guys get confused about who they can target -- lest they themselves become a target.
An armed society is a safe society. For some reason, Democrats do not like that.
That silly assault weapons law is no more, but crawling out of the woodwork came the anti-Second Amendment nuts.
Kerry said Bush made the job of terrorists easier.
In over 30 states any adult without a criminal record can get a concealed carry permit. Crime has dropped.
An armed society is a safe society. Democrats do not like that.
An armed society is a safe society. Democrats do not like that.
Because crime fighting is just another excuse to expand government power.
Guns. Big deal.
Morons, with or without guns. THAT is a big deal.
Too bad there couldn't be a ban on assault morons, of all calibers.
Funny. I'm afraid it wouldn't leave many people in my area. On second thought, I could live with that.
As if the original ban wasn't???? What a jerk. Live with it lady. Your day has come and gone. For a very long time, I hope.
If Doug Fiedor put a folding stock on his carbine before the ban then it was still legal after the ban.
Thanks for the post, forest.
FWIW, Doug's M1 was grandfathered in, and the fed AWB never did affect his folding stock or hi-cap magazines as I read it. Nonetheless, good article.
The folding stock was a problem, but the magainze was not. Neither was if the stock was in place and the magazine produced before the ban. (Since they were produced no later than the Vietnam war, more likely during the Korean war, that should not have been a problem).
You are absolutely correct. This guy never understood the law in the first place. It only applied to new guns and new clips. Older guns and pre-ban clips were never outlawed. His gun was also not on the specific list of guns requiring an FFL transfer. This is a good example of why it was a silly law. Only if he had taken a new gun, made the modifications, and then put a high-capacity clip on it would he have been in trouble.
Another example of reseach challenged punditry....
Doesn't Albany have a law against shooting people?
The battle is not over, it is only beginning.
I don't recommend complacency in the face of what is coming.
Yeah. It was on a sign with a buncha other stuff that stated it was wrong to lie and steal and some other things.
But then one day the ACLU came along and made 'em take it down.
Ditto.
Not in California.
Exactly. Sorry state of affairs there. I'm old enough to remember when the finest commentary came from Orange County, and it had a serious impact on California politics. Seems that, sadly, has gone south, as it were.
Hi Forest, glad to see your still around these parts.
Del
Bah. John Kerry is so 9/10.
And neither did the majority of Americans who's interest in such weapons was limited.
I was still fielding question on what was legal, or not, right up until the ban expired.
Now I am still fielding these questions, the only real difference is that now everyone wants to know what parts they can legally add to their "post ban" guns.
Since 922.(r) did NOT expire the confusion continues!
Here is the bill we need to pass in the next session in order to end the confusion and harassment.
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.