The left trying to ban ARs again

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004." - Wicked Witch of the West

She must have a crystal ball. Either that or "starting to show an effect" means the same thing as "no discernible results".
 
"The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004." - Wicked Witch of the West

She must have a crystal ball. Either that or "starting to show an effect" means the same thing as "no discernible results".

When you know nothing it's ok to make crap up.

She and the rest of the left know nothing about firearms. But like most people they think they do and will push their nonsense on us unless we keep fighting. I really think we need to become much more agressive and figure out how to get all of these Senators along with the left that was voted in in VA out.

I would love electoral colleges for all statewide offices and national offices in all states. I think it would be a big first step in ensuring that a small area of far left can keep electing people like this to rule over the rest of us.
 
This doesn't have a chance of passage (and the sponsors know it). However, they're laying down a marker for when the political calculus changes.

Because of that, I think it might be useful to read this proposal and compare it to the previous AWB. AW's are defined more simply -- basically, any semiautomatic with a detachable magazine and at least one "military" feature. There's a grandfather clause, but it's structured like the Hughes Amendment regarding machine guns -- that is, there's an absolute prohibition coupled with an exemption for weapons legally owned on the date of enactment. This is designed to have an effect on the market, eventually pricing AW's out of the range of mere mortals. It also avoids the compensation issues inherent in an Australian-style ban.

The antis are learning.
 
"The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004."

Reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban was stymied because even its supporters (other than the most fanatical antigun types) saw that it did little or no good, was symbolic with little effect, and may have diverted federal law enforcement funds from more productive programs.

As the sunset of the AWB approached, CDC 2003 and NRC 2004 reviews of research into gun violence and gun laws found no measurable benefit from the AWB. When 2004 approached, Congress did not have the votes to renew the AWB even though George W. Bush said he would sign it if Congress sent the renewal to his desk.

The uselessness of the AWB was recognized way before 2004 by people who could not honestly be labeled gun rights or NRA supporters. The New York publisher of Harper's Magazine was in my hometown on business in 1999 and stayed at the convention center the weekend of the gunshow. He wrote an op-ed that ran in the local paper as "A Northerner's fear and loathing in Kingsport".* In calling for banning handguns in exchange for no limits on long arms, he observed "I'm sure the legalization of assault rifles would upset a few liberals, but they well understand that most gun violence is wreaked by hidden pistols... And they know that maintaining the ban on assault rifles is mere window-dressing, just a dodge for politicians like President Clinton who want to play both sides of the fence."

It was kinda funny he called for us to give up our handguns after noting "I live in one of the most violent cities in America -- New York -- where children carry guns and use them to redress frivolous slights, while the police are among the most trigger-happy in the nation." That's testimony we need a national version of New York's Sullivan Act... not. (The year the op-ed appeared, Kingsport had gone 3 years without a homicide and Sullivan County had had a year with no murders. A 150,000 population sample of NYC 1999 would have had more than zero homicides.)

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report breakdown of weapons used in murder, you are more likely to be killed by an unarmed attacker using his "personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc) than by an attacker using an assault weapon (military style long gun). The money spent on enforcing an assault weapon ban would be better spendt identifying and treating the mentall ill or used to target criminals, not gun owners.

____________________
* John R. MacArthur, "My compromise in the gun debate", The Providence Journal, July 5, 2000,
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63162862.html
Unfortunately the Highbeam Research link requires subscription for the full article.
 
Last edited:
Here is the latest attempt to ban ARs, and any magazine over 10 rounds:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/11/senators-introduce-assault-weapons-ban

I'm surprised Tim Kaine isn't on the list. And yes, I'll be doing all I can to work for his defeat next year (even though this week showed it'll be a huge job).

That aside, please work to get these Senators voted out.

Hey! I just noticed something. There is a "D" in front of each of these Senators' names. Wow, what a strange coincidence!
 
Never ever under estimate these people. Automatically assuming that this bill will fail is self defeating and capitulating. We must treat every ban or gun control bill like this as something that may come to pass if we do nothing but expect the NRA (and others) to fight it for us.
 
We must treat every ban or gun control bill like this as something that may come to pass if we do nothing but expect the NRA (and others) to fight it for us.
Exactly because if this one fails they will write another and another they are not going to stop ,
 
While this has zero chance of passing in the current political climate, we must keep in mind that legislatures and presidencies change over time. What may not have a chance of passing today could very well be a piece of legislation that slide through at some point in the future. Votes matter.
 
My overview of the PDF to show some Easter Eggs hidden in the high grass.

I found interesting Appendix A --
FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2017 by type, makes and models
Page 25 Centerfire Rifles -- Autoloaders
Page 26 Centerfire Rifles -- Lever and Slide
Page 32 Centerfire Rifles -- Bolt Action
Page 45 Centerfire Rifles -- Single Shot
Page 50 Centerfire Rifles -- Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles
Page 52 Rimfire Rifle - Autoloaders
Page 54 Rimfire Rifles -- Lever and Slide
Page 55 Rimfire Rifles -- Bolt Action and Single Shot
Page 60 Competition Rifles -- Centerfire and Rimfire
Page 63 Shotguns -- Autoloaders
Page 72 Shotguns -- Slide Actions
Page 79 Shotguns -- Over/Unders
Page 101 Shotguns -- Side-by-Side
Page 115 Shotguns -- Bolt Actions & Single Shots
Appendix A ends on Page 121
It is not clear if firearms not listed as exempted would be banned under AWB 2017 but I hear echoes of the California list of state-approved handguns.

Under "Rimfire Rifles - Bolt Action and Single Shot"
not listed are four rimfire rifles I own:
M68 Rumanian Training Rifle (.22 LR five shot magazine)
M73 Savage (.22 LR single shot)
63KM Savage (.22 WMR single shot)
Garcia Bronco (.22 LR single shot)
Under "Rimfire Rifles - Autoloaders" the Henry and Survival Arms AR-7 Explorer are listed as exempt but my original ArmaLite AR-7 Explorer is not.
Would guns not listed as exempt become contraband if AWB 2017 were passed?

Page 1 title and purpose: Assault Weapon Ban of 2017
"To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."

Pages 2-16 Definitions

Pages 16-25 Restrictions on Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices (and exemptions for military and police)

Pages 25-121 Appendix A -- Firearms Exempted by the AWB 2017 (by type, makes and models)

Page 121 Penalties under AWB 2017 (added to existing penalties under federal firearms regulations)

Pages 121-124 Background Checks for Transfers of Grandfathered Semiautomatic Assault Weapons

Page 124 Use of Byrne Grants for Buy-Back Programs for Semiautomatic Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices

Page 125 Severability (if one part of AWB 2017 is held to be unconstitutional the other parts will not be affected)

Severability I get the impression that means that this unconstitutional mess, Assault Weapon Ban 2017, could not be found unconstititional at one fell swoop like the DC Handgun Ban by SCOTUS in Heller 2008 or the Chicago Handgun Ban by SCOTUS in MacDonald 2010, but could only die by slices, one part at a time. [Spats McGee has informed us in post #23 that severability clauses are not unusual. Mea cupla. Mea excusa, I have not read a lot of 125 page bills to the bitter end.]

Byrne Grants for Buy-Backs is the seed of a reenactment on US soil of the 1996 Australian mandatory surrender for compensation. The Aussie confiscation was only possible through their national registry of firearms.

Enhanced Background Checks for Transfers ... would create a defacto registry of grandfathered AWs which is the only way an Aussie style mandatory Buy-Back could work (we know you got'em, Mr and Ms America, turn'em in or else).

Purpose The stated pupose of the Assault Weapon Ban of 2017 is to regulate AWs by a law entitled a ban, limit the right to keep and bear arms, and lay the groundwork for an Aussie-style mandatory buy-back.

Contrast that to the stated purpose of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44, Title I:
"The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."

GCA 1968 regulations and requirements with a view to prevent crime and violence, not intended to discourage or eliminate ownership and use for lawful purposes.
AWB 2017 "To regulate assault weapons [ban], to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."
They dropped the mask.
 
Last edited:
It is not clear if firearms not listed as exempted would be banned under AWB 2017
They would still have to come under the general definition of "assault weapon" under the bill. Obviously, bolt action and single-shot rifles, etc., would not. They are just on the list to pad the numbers of "exempted" weapons. Feinstein wants to allay the concerns of the Fudds that their favorite guns would be affected.
 
Severability I get the impression that means that this unconstitutional mess, Assault Weapon Ban 2017, could not be found unconstititional at one fell swoop like the DC Handgun Ban by SCOTUS in Heller 2008 or the Chicago Handgun Ban by SCOTUS in MacDonald 2010, but could only die by slices, one part at a time.
Not necessarily. Severability clauses aren't unusual in the slightest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top