Tag Archives: SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” ISSUE

Joe Biden’s “Education” Plan Aims to “Defeat” the NRA, Reprise Failed Gun Control Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Looks like Creepy Uncle Joe wants to retry the “Assault Weapons Ban” that failed under Bill Clinton and Big Brother both. READ MORE

biden

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week the campaign website for presidential hopeful Joe Biden published what it called an “Education … Plan for Educators, Students, and Our Future.” Among its agenda items was to “[d]efeat the National Rifle Association” by “championing legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — bans [Biden] authored in 1994.” In other words, Biden would reprise a law that was widely recognized (including among gun control advocates) as a failure and the cause of his party losing control of Congress in 1994.

Halfway through his first term, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 into law. That 356-page bill included a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and limits on the capacity of firearm magazines. It’s ghoulish and Orwellian short title was the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.”

Firearms misleadingly dubbed “assault weapons” were banned by the law in three ways: by name, as “copies or duplicates” of the named firearms, and by a test that limited what features could be incorporated into a semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine. Firearms that were lawfully possessed before the ban’s effective date were exempt.

The ban included a provision that required the U.S. attorney general to “investigate and study the effect of this subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle,” and in particular, “their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime.” The study was to be reported to Congress not later than 30 months after the law’s enactment.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) contracted with the Urban Institute to complete that assessment, and it was published on March 13, 1997. The study, while bemoaning the necessarily limited amount of data for review, failed to substantiate any significant reduction in violent crime attributable to the ban. In particular, the authors “were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim.”

The authors did posit a “6.7% reduction in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends,” but they admitted this could simply have been a year-to-year variation, “rather than a true effect of the ban.” They also acknowledged that other provisions of the 1994 crime bill, “or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously,” could have accounted for the drop.

More fundamentally, the authors pointed out that the ban from the outset missed the point when it came to reducing violent crime. “At best,” they wrote, “the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

The ban, in other words, actually went after guns and magazines that were underrepresented in firearm related homicides.

What debate over the law did seem to accomplish, according to the study, was to raise interest into the firearms targeted for banning. Production of the targeted guns surged during 1994, “so that more than an extra year’s normal supply of assault weapons and legal substitutes was manufactured during 1994.” The upshot was that prices for grandfathered and substitute guns remained near pre-ban levels for the early years of the law, and consumers could go on as before purchasing them for legal uses.

But that’s not all.

The lead authors of the study later received another NIJ grant to update their findings, which they did in July 2004 under the auspices of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Again, the authors indicated that the ban missed the point. “The AW provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation,” they wrote. They also reiterated that “AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%,” with most of those “assault weapon” crime guns being pistols, rather than rifles.

The authors also conceded that the ban had no effect on the criminal use of what today’s gun control advocates consider the paradigmatic “assault rifle,” the AR-15. “There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs,” they wrote, an assessment that was “complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons … .” Likewise, the authors saw no drop in the use of banned magazines in crime and could not “clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

Overall, the authors concluded that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The only good thing about the ban’s language was that it contained a 10-year sunset clause, the expiration date of which just happened to coincide with the waning days of President George W. Bush’s first term. Congress allowed the law to expire, giving it the ignominious death it so richly deserved.

Since then, even staunch gun control advocates have often admitted that trying to ban certain types of semi-automatic firearms under the guise of “assault weapons” is a fool’s errand.

The Atlantic, in a June 25, 2016 article, referred to the law as “Bill Clinton’s Costly Assault Weapons Ban.” The article quotes a lengthy oral history by Clinton’s chief congressional affairs lobbyist, who indicated he was caught off guard when he learned that Clinton was committed to pursuing the law. “It was,” the lobbyist said, “a disaster from day one.” Democratic party leadership pleaded with Clinton not to pursue the ban. When he insisted, they tried to distance themselves from the effort as much as they could.

While deals were made, the lobbyist recounts, they “were not necessarily made on the substance of the issue. The candy store was open. . . It was a very transactional kind of setup.”

In the 1994 midterm elections soon after the ban’s enactment, Clinton’s party lost a net of 54 seats in the House, as well as 8 Senate seats. The lobbyist attributed at least 40 of those losses to the “assault weapons” ban. Clinton himself later concurred that he had pushed too hard on the ban, effectively handing control of Capitol Hill to the opposition party.

Bill Clinton had no stronger critic in 1994 than the NRA.

Yet that episode is what Joe Biden now calls a “defeat” of the NRA.

Of course, Biden and his fellow Democrats are counting on the idea that the politics around “assault weapons” have changed since then.

And while it’s certainly true that the Democratic base remains committed to the idea of resurrecting an “assault weapons” ban, it’s not true that the American public at large agrees with them or is showing any sustained fervor around the issue. As we reported last October, Americans oppose a ban on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms by robust double-digit margins, with support for such a ban 7% lower than the historical trend dating back to 1996, when Gallup first began polling on the issue.

Defeating the NRA may be a nice rallying cry for people who maintain committed to disarming law-abiding Americans, but taking their semi-automatic rifles won’t improve public safety. Some of the more honest members of the gun control movement admit this, including in articles published in such staunchly anti-gun publications as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Mother Jones, the Los Angeles Times, and Vice.com.

And let’s not forget, Joe Biden himself was the figurehead for Barack Obama’s post-Newtown federal gun control blitz in late 2012 and early 2013.

But, as Politico recounted, “Biden did not deliver.” In that same article, a Senate aide recounted how even as Biden was publicly calling for restoring the federal “assault weapons” ban, “[b]ehind the scenes, [he] was ‘instrumental’ in convincing more liberal Democrats that there was no point in fighting for anything beyond a background check bill … .”

You might even say ol’ Joe himself recognized he was already defeated by the NRA.

It of course remains to be seen if Joe Biden will even prevail in his party’s presidential primary, much less have the opportunity to pursue his legislative agenda from the Oval Office.

But it only takes a little homework to show that when it comes to gun control, all he is offering with his “education” plan are empty promises and failed policies.

 

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Pushes May-Issue Federal Firearm Owner Licensing and Gun Confiscation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

He’s just all over the news… Here’s his “plan.” READ MORE

cory booker

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On Monday, in an obvious and desperate attempt to garner attention in an overcrowded 2020 Democratic presidential field, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) threw long-cultivated anti-gun strategy and messaging to the wind and further exposed the gun control endgame when he released his “Plan To End the Gun Violence Epidemic.” The document is a slapdash gun control advocate wish list, at the core of which is a plan to create a may-issue federal gun owner licensing scheme and confiscate millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

As intended, Booker’s senseless gun control declaration garnered the serial grandstander modest media attention. Elaborating on his anti-gun agenda during an interview with CNN, Booker made clear his intent to imprison those who do not comply with his confiscation plan. Anchor Poppy Harlow asked the senator,

Your competitor in the 2020 race… has also, like you, proposed an assault weapons ban, but he’s proposing a buyback program. Where Americans that currently have those guns could sell them essentially to the government. But if they don’t within a certain period of time they would be prosecuted, so subject to be thrown in jail perhaps. Are you supportive of the same measure?

At first Booker equivocated, but Harlow continued to press the candidate, reiterating, “Would you prosecute people? Do you support the government buying them back, and if not, potentially people could go to jail if they don’t want to sell them back; yes or no?” While failing to directly acknowledge the logical penal consequences of his proposal, Booker responded to Harlow’s question by stating, “We should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.”

Booker’s proposal does not provide a definition of “assault weapon,” so it is unclear the exact firearms that would be implicated under his plan. However, given that Booker is a cosponsor of S.66, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” it can be deduced that the senator from New Jersey seeks to prohibit an even larger category of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms than Bill Clinton’s 1994 ban.

For a candidate that has made criminal justice reform a focal point of his campaign, Booker’s indifference to the incarceration of nonviolent and otherwise law-abiding gun owners makes clear that his compassion does not extend to those who defy his political sensibilities. And there is ample evidence that many would defy Booker’s preferred policies.

Enacted in 2013, the New York SAFE Act required owners of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to register their guns with the state. An estimated 1-1.2 million firearms were implicated under the measure. Data released in 2015 revealed that 23,847 people had registered a total of 44,485 guns.

A 2013 Connecticut measure required gun owners to register certain configurations of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and individual magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. According to a 2011 report, there were an estimated 2.4 million such magazines in the state. Gun owners had registered 38,290 magazines at the registration deadline.

Booker need only to look at his home state of New Jersey to understand the folly of his proposal. An April 17, 1992 New York Times article, “Owners of Assault Guns Slow to Obey Law,” noted, “In New Jersey, which enacted an assault weapon ban in 1990, 2,000 weapons have been surrendered, made inoperable or registered as collectors’ items, according to the State Police. The state Attorney General’s office estimates that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 assault weapons in New Jersey.”

Aside from the impracticality and hypocrisy of Booker’s proposal, it would also be ineffective and unconstitutional. A congressionally-mandated study of the 1994 semi-automatic ban determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” in part because, “[assault weapons] and [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban.” In joining Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent from a denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, which concerned a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatics, Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that existing Supreme Court precedent (which he authored in District of Columbia v. Heller) precluded bans on such firearms. In the dissent, Justice Thomas explained that “several Courts of Appeals… have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes,” which he noted was “noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents.”

The other core aspect of Booker’s gun control agenda is federal firearm owner licensing, which he likens to a driver’s license, complete with a firearms version of the DMV. Such a license would be required to merely own a firearm.

Americans should not be required to obtain a license that serves as a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutional right. That aside, this lazy analogy is flawed.

Constitutional scholar and UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh has pointed out on multiple occasions what treating firearm ownership like car ownership would mean in practice. In a 2014 piece for WashingtonPost.com, Volokh explained,

Cars are basically regulated as follows (I rely below on California law, but to my knowledge the rules are similar throughout the country):

(1) No federal licensing or registration of car owners.

(2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration. See, e.g., California Vehicle Code §§ 360, 12500 (driver’s license required for driving on “highways,” defined as places that are “publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel”); California Vehicle Code § 4000 (same as to registration).

(3) Any adult –and in most states, 16- and 17-year-olds, as well –may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.

(4) You can lose your license for proved misuse of the car, but not for most other misconduct; and even if you lose your driver’s license, you can usually regain it some time later.

(5) Your license from one state is good throughout the country.

Now I suspect that many gun control advocates would in reality prefer a much more onerous system of regulations for guns than for cars.

Booker’s proposal proves Volokh’s suspicion correct.

Like all of his gun control proposals, Booker’s description of the licensing scheme is short on details. However, The New York Times reported that under Booker’s proposal, the application process would include “sitting for an interview.” The only reason to subject an applicant to an interview is to inject subjective criteria into the licensing process. Under such a scheme, a person’s ability to exercise their constitutional right would be at the discretion of federal government functionary and whatever prejudices they may hold.

Perhaps unbeknownst to Booker, over the last three decades the vast majority of states have removed subjective criteria and government discretion from their concealed carry licensing procedures. In some jurisdictions, such discretion had been, and still is, used to deny residents’ right to bear arms outside the home wholesale. In other jurisdictions that discretion has fostered corruption and been abused to limit the Right-to-Carry to the rich or well-connected.

All current polling and prediction market data suggest that that Booker is not a serious candidate for president. However, unlike even more vacuous candidates, Booker does possess significant political power as the junior senator from New Jersey.

While his flagrant hostility to gun owners may be intemperate and imprudent, Booker’s proposal does serve to show the radical confiscatory aims of the gun control movement. Moreover, it should be a warning to gun owners that these fringe ideas have well-positioned backers within the corridors of power.

 

Anti-Gun Democrat Congressman Invokes Nuclear Option Against Resistors of Firearm Confiscation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Whoa… If he didn’t mean it he shouldn’t have said it. Read about Swalwell’s “Armageddon Confiscation” threat HERE

swalwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Well, it’s just before Thanksgiving, and nothing gets you into the holiday spirit like a U.S. Congressman who raises the specter of unleashing a nuclear attack against fellow Americans to demonstrate just how darned committed he is to mass firearm confiscation.

For those who were looking for yet another reason to purchase modern semiautomatic firearms and extra magazines for yourselves and your loved ones this holiday sales season, we give you the comments of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA).

Swalwell, you may recall, gained some headlines for himself earlier this year when he proposed banning various semiautomatic firearms, forcing current owners to surrender them to the government, and “go[ing] after” resisters.

Last week, he made it clear in a Twitter exchange that he meant what he said.

Responding to another Twitter user who commented that an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and ban and seize guns would provoke a war, Swallwell stated: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.” He added, “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

When confronted with the obvious import of his words — that he was suggesting nuclear weapons could be used on American soil against resisters of firearm confiscation — Swalwell backpedaled and tried to reframe his comments.

“Don’t be so dramatic,” he tweeted. “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.”

Later, as backlash continued to mount, Swalwell changed his story again and claimed his reference to America’s nuclear arsenal was merely a “joke” and “sarcasm.”

So which Swalwell story are we supposed to believe?

If it’s the first one, there’s apparently no option that he would consider off the table for enforcing firearm confiscation. This includes destroying entire communities, killing untold numbers of innocent bystanders, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable, all to annihilate (and presumably make an example of) anyone who stood in the way of his plans.

If it’s the second one, he’s pointing out that the idea of resisting a federal firearm confiscation order is “ludicrous” because the 18th Century’s relative parity between the unorganized militia and the then-recognized government no longer exists, even if the nuclear option is off the table. Yet this also implies that he could foresee using sophisticated military technology other than nuclear weapons against resistors.

If we’re to believe the third story, we’re all just too stuffy and serious to recognize the obvious comedic intent the U.S. Congressman had when he referenced nuclear weapons in describing the futility of anyone resisting the government’s attempt to violate their fundamental constitutional rights. The historical basis of the Second Amendment, in other words, is but a joke to Eric Swalwell.

Whichever option you choose, it is incredible even by the low standards of modern political rhetoric that Swalwell would be the one accusing others of being “dramatic” and “inflam[ing] the gun debate. We just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

And even if he didn’t mean what he actually said (always a possibility with anti-gun politicians), we can still give thanks that Eric Swalwell is not and almost certainly never will be trusted with the launch codes for America’s nuclear arsenal.

But it’s perhaps not surprising that he could be so cavalier about subjects many gun-owning Americans take very seriously. Despite the political left’s mantras of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, many are proudly ignorant of and indifferent to the types of lives led by millions of ordinary Americans who happen not to inhabit America’s largest coastal cities.

Also weighing into Swalwell’s Twitter debacle this week was Nina Burleigh, Newsweek’s national politics correspondent and, according to her official Newsweek bio, “an award-winning journalist and the author of five books.”

With such impressive journalistic credentials covering U.S. politics, you would think that Ms. Burleigh would have at least caught on that AR-15s and similar guns are common and popular firearms in America, even if she didn’t know that they are in fact America’s most popular class of rifles.

But to think so would be overestimating Nina Burleigh.

As Swalwell attempted to reframe his initial tweet, Burleigh leapt to his defense with a tweet of her own aimed at the NRA’s Dana Loesch: “Almost every single person I’ve ever heard of with an AR-15 has been a mass murderer. Based on Twitter sample the rest of them are scarily paranoid. Get on the right side of history.”

And even if it’s possible that Burleigh herself doesn’t personally know a single one of the many, many millions of Americans who own and lawfully use AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles, you might think she would have at least read about some of them, again considering she works in the media.

For example, she might have read about Stephen Willeford, who used his AR-15 to end a mass shooting in a Texas church and to prevent the perpetrator from escaping.

There’s also Sarah Merkle, who as a 15-year-old testified against the then-pending ban in Maryland on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. She explained that the AR-15 was the type of rifle she used as a member of the Maryland State Rifle Team and that her competitive accomplishments provided her with college scholarship opportunities she otherwise would not have had. She also explained that rifles of any type are used in only a very small percentage of firearm-related homicides in the U.S.

Also making the news as an AR-15 owner was U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who during the debate over the Democrats’ proposed “assault weapons” ban in 2013 noted that “I own an AR-15 and I have done nothing wrong by owning the gun.”

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Burleigh was also joking and that we just aren’t sophisticated to understand her rapier-like wit.

Call us party poopers, but we just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

mushroom cloud

 

Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In an odd turn, just before Halloween one prominent gun control group briefly got out of costume: read all about what was underneath it… SEE MORE

giffords

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

When former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly launched Americans for Responsible Solutions (now named Giffords) in early 2013, gun owners were assured that the group sought moderate “common-sense solutions” to gun violence. The group admonished NRA for not working to “to find the balance between our rights” and gun regulation. Giffords and Kelly explained, “we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.”

This, of course, was all a marketing ploy. From its inception, Giffords has pushed the same warmed-over gun control policies as their less messaging-savvy peers.

To help their anti-gun allies better deceive the public, in 2016 Giffords put out a gun control messaging manual titled, “A Guide to Understanding and Engaging Americans on the Need for Stronger Gun Laws.” In a section labelled, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Talking About Gun Violence,” the guide made clear to gun control supporters that “Talk about creating a national gun registry, or banning or confiscating guns” was a definite “Don’t.” The group went on to falsely contend none of those measures “are policy priorities or have widespread support among gun violence prevention organizations.”

Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.

In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”

Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state,

To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don’t mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.

Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.

While a former federal bureaucrat might not mind navigating the convoluted federal bureaucracy in order to exercise a constitutional right, most should abhor the prior restraint of NFA regulations.

In order to acquire a machinegun, the transferee and transferor must submit a Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm to the ATF. The form requires identifying information about the firearm and personal information about the applicant. The transferee must submit an identifying photograph along with two completed FBI Forms FD-258 fingerprint cards. This information is compiled in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, colloquially known as the NFA registry. The transferee must also pay a $200 tax.

The NFA procedure is also a prohibitive waiting period. The latest ATF data measured the wait time for completion of a Form 4 at seven months, or over 200 days. At certain points in 2016, waits stretched to about a year.

Chipman’s policy of treating AR-15s “just like machineguns” would also mean a ban on the civilian possession of newly-manufactured AR-15 rifles. In 1986, anti-gun members of Congress were successful in getting one piece of gun control into the vital Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. A late, and controversial, amendment from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) placed a ban on the transfer and possession of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Treating AR-15s like machineguns would mean a permanent freeze on the total stock of AR-15s Americans could lawfully possess.

There are good reasons gun control advocates seek to obscure such radical goals.

An October Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of Americans oppose “a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles.” For the last seven years, every time Gallup has asked this question opposition to a ban has outweighed support.

Moreover, there is no evidence that further restricting commonly-owned semi-automatics would reduce violent crime. A pair of Department of Justice-funded studies of the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban could not determine that the ban reduced violent crime. The later of the two studies, from 2004, stated, “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” In explaining why, the researchers wrote, “estimates consistently show that AWs [commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms] are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” More recent research from the RAND Corporation determined, “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive.”

History also shows that otherwise law-abiding gun owners are unlikely to comply with gun registration requirements. In the year and a half following implementation of the N.Y. SAFE Act in early 2014, 23,847 people registered 44,485 guns. Estimates of the number of firearms in the state subject to registration were 1-1.2 million. Gun control advocates didn’t have any better luck that year in Connecticut. Despite estimates that Nutmeg State residents owned several hundred thousand firearms and 2.4 million magazines subject to new registration requirements, owners registered a mere 50,016 firearms and 38,290 magazines.

Anti-gun advocates are well aware that the American people, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly rejected the severe gun control measures they support. Faced with this reality, gun control advocates have continually dressed up their fanatical goals in all manner of disguise. Constantly masquerading as moderate, for gun control supporters every day is like Halloween. As for anyone who falls for their ruse, it’s all tricks and no treats.

Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After “Resisters”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Don’t believe the smoke screen: the anti-gun agenda won’t rest until they’ve got your gun… READ MORE

swallwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The May 11, 2018 headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

According to the NBC piece, Swalwell is modeling his own proposal on laws passed during the 1990s in Australia. The article then inaccurately states, “But while Australia comes up often in gun debates, almost no prominent figures have proposed national laws that would demand that gun owners turn in existing weapons en masse.”

The truth is that anyone who suggests the United States should adopt Australian-style gun control — a club that includes such infamous gun ban advocates as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is by definition advocating for the forcible disarming of “resisters.” That, in fact, was the signature feature of the Australian approach.

The widespread disarming of Australian citizens occurred through a comprehensive scheme that proceeded as follows. What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

First, the various political subdivisions within Australia unanimously agreed to a uniform ban on large categories of popular firearms. The ban was both retroactive and prospective.

Second, the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation.

Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails.

The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense — which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, is completely foreign to and incompatible with America’s history, tradition, and rights of firearm ownership. Simply put, there is no reconciling Australian-style gun control with America’s Second Amendment, a fact which even some gun control advocates in their more candid moments are willing to admit.

If Swalwell has distinguished himself at all from other American advocates of the Australian approach, it’s because he is willing to be more forthcoming about the fact that it would turn millions of formerly law-abiding Americans into armed “criminals” with the stroke of a pen.

In his NBC interview, however, he tried to have it both ways.

First, he insisted:

I’m not proposing a roundup or confiscation. It would be like anything else that’s banned: If you’re caught with it there would be a steep penalty. Any fear of ATF agents going door to door to collect assault weapons is unfounded and not what is proposed here. They don’t go collecting drugs that are banned or any other substance or weapon that’s banned and I’m not proposing that here.

That, of course, is a lie. Law enforcement agents with enough probable cause that someone possesses drugs or other contraband to get a warrant absolutely do go after the contraband. Some might even say they are duty-bound to do so. A quick Internet search will show you what that looks like in the real world.

Anybody who illegally possesses a contraband firearm potentially risks the same treatment. Swalwell, who touts his credentials as a former prosecutor, surely knows that.

But when asked to elaborate about the “stiff penalties” that would supposedly ensure compliance with his scheme, Swalwell seemingly contradicted his no-confiscation stance, stating, “I’d want to first get the gun.”

To their credit, NBC asked Swalwell directly whether he was “prepared for some of the confrontations that might erupt from this,” adding, “You’re surely familiar with the slogan, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.’” Swalwell brushed aside the question, indicating that Parkland survivors who have been advocating for gun control have given him “courage” for resolute action.

The actions he is calling for, however, carry inherent risks of further unnecessary loss of innocent life.

But that is what the gun “debate” has come to in America, with at least one gun control advocate so emboldened that he’s openly willing to put violent confrontations on the table to advance the agenda.

Whether Rep. Swalwell is serious or whether he is just hoping to move the Overton Window on what is considered legitimate rhetoric in the realm of gun control policy is perhaps debatable.

What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

NRA Statement on Long Gun Purchases by Law-abiding Adults

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

For the record, here’s what the National Rifle Association has to say about the rights to own rifles and shotguns. Read it HERE

nra logo

Federal Law prohibits adults under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer. Legislative proposals that prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring rifles and shotguns effectively prohibits them for purchasing any firearm, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection. We need serious proposals to prevent violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20 year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals. The NRA supports efforts to prevent those who are a danger to themselves or others from getting access to firearms. At the same time, we will continue to oppose gun control measures that only serve to punish law-abiding citizens. These are not mutually exclusive or unachievable goals.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

SAGA: Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

This new act would put a stop to the inconsistencies between state and federal firearms laws. Important!

Source: NRA-ILA

Last week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states — including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.

Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns — by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime — were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.

Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”

With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.