assault weapons ban

‘Assault Weapons Ban Of 2017’ Legislation Introduced In U.S. Senate

You knew it was coming after the Nevada and Texas mass shootings. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action (NRA-ILA) Thursday:

Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Commonly Owned Semi-Autos, Again!

On Wednesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 2095, which she is calling the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. The 125-page firearm prohibition fever dream is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.

Subject to an exception for “grandfathered” firearms, the bill would prohibit AR-15s and dozens of other semi-automatic rifles by name (as well as their “variants” or “altered facsimiles”), and any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine and be equipped with a pistol grip, an adjustable or detachable stock, or a barrel shroud. And that’s just a partial list. “Pistol grip” would be defined as “a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip,” meaning the ban could implicate even traditional stocks or grips specifically designed to comply with existing state “assault weapon” laws.

Needless to say, semi-automatic shotguns and handguns would get similar treatment.

Also banned would be any magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds or even any magazine that could be “readily restored, changed, or converted to accept” more than 10 rounds.

While Feinstein’s bill would graciously allow those who lawfully owned the newly-banned guns at the time of the law’s enactment to keep them, it would impose strict storage requirements any time the firearm was not actually in the owner’s hands or within arm’s reach. Violations would be punishable (of course) by imprisonment.

Owners of grandfathered “assault weapons” could also go to prison for allowing someone else to borrow or buy the firearm, unless the transfer was processed through a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer would be required to document the transaction and run a background check on the recipient.

Should lawful owners of the newly-banned firearms and magazines decide that the legal hazards of keeping them were too much, the bill would authorize the use of taxpayer dollars in the form of federal grants to establish programs to provide “compensation” for their surrender to the government.

This bill is nothing more than a rehash of Feinstein’s failed experiment in banning “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds. Except this time, Feinstein would like to go even further in restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to firearms and magazines that are commonly owned for lawful self-defense.

The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had little, if any, impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction” of firearm related crime.

Don’t let Dianne Feinstein infringe on our Second Amendment rights with a policy that’s been proven to do nothing to stop crime. Please contact your U.S. Senators and encourage them to oppose S. 2095. You can contact your U.S. Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click here to Take Action.


“Diane Feinstein on Gun ban in 1995 -Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your guns in!”
YouTube Video

Permission granted by the NRA-ILA to reproduce the material above.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Highland Park, Illinois, ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Latest

Back on December 23, 2013, I blogged about the City of Highland Park on Chicago’s far North Shore passing an ordinance banning “assault weapons” within its city-limits at a June city council meeting.

Subsequently, the Illinois municipality was sued for its “assault weapons” ban.

Last week, a federal court rendered a decision on the lawsuit. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action on May 1:

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Monday allowing a Chicago-area gun and magazine ban to stand. Such bans are justifiable, according to the court, merely on the basis that they “may increase the public’s sense of safety.”

The case, Friedman v. Highland Park, was filed in 2013, and sought to invalidate a city ordinance that banned “assault weapons or large capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” Highland Park was one of several Chicago suburbs that hastily enacted municipal ordinances regulating or banning the possession of “assault weapons” before the state’s 2013 concealed carry law preempted home-rule authority to do so.

This week, in a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel upheld the ban. According to the majority opinion, “A ban on assault weapons won’t eliminate gun violence in Highland Park, but it may reduce overall dangerousness of crime that does occur ….” Remarkably, the majority went on to suggest that even if the 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. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority wrote, “Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events.”

The majority acknowledged that “assault weapons” can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter and more accurate than alternative options and can be wielded more effectively by householders. Yet they quickly threw their own logic aside to reassert the city’s interest in reducing perceived risk over the tangible benefits that that modern firearms provide to their owners. “If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the opinion argued.

Judge Daniel Anthony Manion dissented from the majority opinion. Manion forcefully and persuasively argued that the ruling opinion is “at odds with the central holdings in Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”

He went on to press the point that only individuals “make the ultimate decision for what constitutes the most effective means of defending one’s home, family, and property.” In stark contrast to the majority, Judge Manion was willing to recognize the constitutional dimensions that individual choice makes in the Second Amendment realm, just as it does with other fundamental rights. “Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters,” he wrote.

Judge Manion’s reminder that when it comes to our fundamental rights, “The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them,” cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, his colleagues refused to uphold their duty to recognize either the right at stake or Highland Park’s violation of it. Rest assured, however, that your NRA will continue the fight to see that injustice corrected.

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Robert McCoppin reported on the Chicago Tribune website on April 28:

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court…

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said he was confident the law could be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the National Rifle Association would have to decide whether to make a costly appeal.

“The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms,” Pearson said. “The government doesn’t get to pick the list.”

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Stay tuned…

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

(Editor’s note: Permission to reproduce this piece granted by the NRA-ILA)

Source:

McCoppin, Robert. “Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban.” Chicago Tribune. 28 Apr. 2015. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/chi-assault-weapons-ban-highland-park-20150427-story.html). 5 May 2015.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama Calls For Reintroducing ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban In Second Presidential Debate

Almost on a weekly basis I read somewhere that Barack Obama and the Democrats will not pursue more gun “control” should the President be reelected.

President Obama’s supposed “inaction” during his first term is brought up as “evidence” of this.

Yet, as I pointed out back on September 6, the Democratic Party’s 2012 National Platform that was approved at their National Convention called for “reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole.”

Excuse me, but that’s pushing for a gun ban and more gun “control,” if I’m not mistaken.

Any remaining doubts about President Obama and the Democrats wanting more regulations placed on firearms should have been dispelled last night in the second of a series of U.S. Presidential debates. When asked what his administration has “done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons,” the sitting U.S. President replied:

So my belief is that A, we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

Once again, calling for a new gun ban. Two times. Two months.

At this point, no one can honestly say Barack Obama and the Democrats don’t plan on pushing for more gun “control” should the President be reelected without looking incredibly stupid.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WSJ: Guns And Ammo Retailers Prepare For Presidential Election

49 days until Election Day.

And the sale of guns and ammunition is brisk due to fears President Barack Obama will be re-elected and move to implement the gun “control” measures spelled out in the Democratic Party’s national platform during a second term in the White House.

Well, this weekend I came across an interesting piece on the Wall Street Journal website about how the November election is influencing guns and ammo businesses in America. Shelly Banjo wrote Friday:

As Cabela’s Inc. prepares the selection of guns it will sell for the holiday season and winter hunting, the outdoor-gear retailer has two plans: one if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and one if he isn’t.

The Sidney, Neb.-based retailer and other companies in the guns-and-ammo business say if Mr. Obama wins a second term they are preparing for a surge in sales—the same as they saw after he was elected in 2008—from buyers fearful the president would back policies to make buying a gun more difficult. If Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins, though, the chain plans to stock more items such as waterproof boots and camouflage hunting gear…

Anyone contemplating firearm and/or ammunition purchases might want to digest what the WSJ article had to say. You can read the entire piece on their website here.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

It’s Official: Democrats To Push For More Gun ‘Control’

Now that the Democratic Party’s 2012 National Platform has been approved and- ahem- subsequently “amended,” I wanted to compare it to the Republican Party’s 2012 National Platform as it concerns firearms. From the Democrats’ Moving America Forward: 2012 Democratic National Platform:

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

And from the Republicans’ We Believe in America: Republican Platform 2012:

The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

As recent as this week, it’s been claimed sitting U.S. President Barack Obama has barely pushed for more gun “control” during his time in the White House. From the 2012 Democratic National Convention host city’s own The Charlotte Observer this Tuesday:

Obama hasn’t proposed any anti-gun legislation during his first term, and his talk about gun control has been almost non-existent these last four years.

He didn’t need to, in retrospect. Because, contrary to the pro-gun stance adopted by the Republican Party, more gun “control” is now blatantly codified in the Democratic Party’s 2012 national platform.

“We can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole…”

A new gun ban? Closing the gun show “loophole?” Undeniably, those are calls for more regulation of firearms.

As one Hollywood gun “control” supporter might have argued in TV commercials he used to star in… the proof is in the pudding.

Source:

“Don’t wimp out on gun-control platform.” The Charlotte Observer. 4 Sept. 2012. (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/04/3501421/dont-wimp-out-on-gun-control-platform.html). 6 Sep. 2012.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator Feinstein To Reintroduce ‘Updated Assault Weapons Bill’

Earlier today, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced she will be reintroducing “an updated assault weapons bill.” Kitty Felde wrote on the 89.3 KPCC (Southern California Public Radio) website this afternoon:

Dianne Feinstein announced Wednesday that she’s re-entering the battle over gun control during her keynote speech to the California delegates to the Democratic National Convention…

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Although Senator Feinstein is an ardent gun “control” supporter and is well-known for co-sponsoring the original assault weapons ban legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, she recently said it was a “bad time” to press the gun “control” issue. Michael Ono wrote on The Note blog on the ABC News website on July 22:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of more outspoken gun-control advocates in Congress, said today that both Mitt Romney and President Obama should give the gun control issue a lot of “consideration,” but said now is a “bad time” to press the issue politically.

“I think that they should give it a lot of consideration, I think this is a bad time to embrace such a new subject,” the California Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.” “There has been no action because there is no outrage out there, people haven’t rallied forward.”

Stay tuned…

Sources:

Felde, Kitty. “Senator Dianne Feinstein says she’ll reintroduce assault weapon legislation.” 89.3 KPCC. 5 Sep. 2012. (http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/05/34168/senator-feinstein-says-shell-reintroduce-gun-legis/). 5 Sep. 2012.

Ono, Michael. “Sen. Feinstein: ‘Bad Time’ to Press for Gun Control.” The Note. 22 July 2012. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/sen-feinstein-bad-time-to-press-gun-control/). 5 Sep. 2012.

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Chicago Tribune Columnist Debunks ‘Assault Weapons’ Myth

It appears at least one member of the Chicago news media isn’t pushing gun control these days. Columnist and editorial writer Steve Chapman wrote on the Chicago Tribune website yesterday:

The assault weapons myth

Gov. Quinn wants to outlaw the sale and possession of “assault weapons,” insisting that “there is no place in Illinois for weapons designed to fire rapidly at human targets at close range.” He doesn’t mention that even if his ban were to pass, there would be plenty of other legal firearms that can be used to fire rapidly at human targets at close range — or long range, for that matter.

Assault weapons are just ordinary guns dressed up to look scary. Quinn is making a mistake to buy the ruse…

It’s kind of weird seeing this from someone so high up the food chain in a major Chicago news outlet. Let’s see. Steve Chapman. Lives in the Chicago suburbs. Attended Harvard. Born in Brady, Texas, and grew up in Midland and Austin.

There you go.

You can read the rest of Chapman’s piece, in which he also challenged a pro-“assault weapons” ban claim by the Reverend Jesse Jackson, on the Tribune website here.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Survival And Prosperity
Est. 2010, Chicagoland, USA
Christopher E. Hill, Editor

Successor to Boom2Bust.com
"The Most Hated Blog On Wall Street"
(Memorial Day Weekend 2007-2010)

Happy Thanksgiving

PLEASE RATE this blog HERE,
and PLEASE VOTE for the blog below:



Thank you very, very much!
Advertising Disclosure here.
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Emergency Foods Local vendor (Forest Park, IL). Review coming soon.
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Legacy Food Storage Review coming soon
ANY CHARACTER HERE
MyPatriotSupply.com reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Buy Gold And Silver Coins BGASC reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BulletSafe reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BullionVault BullionVault.com reviewed HERE
This project dedicated to St. Jude
Patron Saint of Desperate Situations

Categories

 

Archives