Well, it is well known that the Left is going bat crazy in trying to rid the American populace of any guns that are of any consequence in defiance of the real purpose of the Second Amendment – defense against a tyrannical govt. Much has been made that the Founders could not have foreseen modern sporting rifles (aka “the scary looking guns that have Progressives changing their panties often”), so we should be limited to muzzle loading muskets. I thought this observation is truer to the real intent “to have comparable arms to the modern British soldier” – kinda puts that snarky musket comment in different light, eh?
Any ways, we’ve seen all kinds of machinations around the theme of “Progressives don’t trust ordinary law abiding citizens with cool looking guns” whose main technological capability, being semi-automatic, is well over a 100 years old. We’ve seen the list of banned guns, we’ve seen the list of approved guns. We’ve seen the craziness of the number of rounds in a magazine (where 30 rounds for an AR is the STANDARD size, not a high capacity size) to limit them as low as 3 (and NY has made it 7 for any firearm taking a detachable magazine). Cosmetic stuff too – shrouds, foregrips, variable stocks, thumbhole stocks; stuff that have no different in making the basic technology “more lethal”. Gun registries – either legally (as in NY) or de facto (at the national level).
But there have been other stuff proposed that are less well known – but just as useful in removing the ability for lawful citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to contemporary and well known & distributed firearms. So, lets review a few of the more flagrant ones.
From US Senator Diane Feinstein’s S.150 – “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes”.
1) Here’s a little nasty one for you – page 10:
‘‘(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.
‘‘(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).
Now, the context is that with all of the banned rifles and handguns listed in her bill, she didn’t want people to end-run around the ban by kitting up their own from available parts. So here it “appears” that the action of putting such parts together would be illegal. However, not only was it her intention for the quantity of enumerated rifles to dry up – but it was estimated that with a couple hundred million of prospective banned items it would take up to a century.
Er, not if it is illegal to manufacture or buy replacement parts. While it looks like she is banning “roll your own”, she is making it all but illegal for manufacturers to provide aftermarket parts for customization of existing rifles (want a better trigger mechanism? Too bad for you!) – or fix an existing OEM part if it breaks (e.g., once a recoil spring has sprung, your two thousand dollar rifle is good for nothing more than smelter material (because you can’t part it out!).
2) Permit to purchase ammunition. Sure, you can buy any gun you want….oh, you no longer want to pull the trigger and have to scream “BANG!” and have some varmint die of laughter? Various state Democrats want to eliminate Internet sales of ammo – you have to show up at a store, show a State approved ID just for ammo purchase (sometimes having to go through a background check, some with fingerprinting). Let’s just make this other side of the equation of shooting just as hard as acquiring a firearm.
After all, it is all about making it as hard as we can to drive them off. Oh, that Freedom thing? What of it?
3) If you own a gun, you need to have insurance – hey, you have it for your house in case something goes wrong, right? That State you live in makes you buy car insurance in case you screw up and have an accident, right (well, not here in NH)? And now Obama has decreed that we all have to have to have healthcare insurance (not for you, you dope – to pay for everyone else!), right?
So, Progressives want to make that gun purchase just that much more expensive by making you buy gun insurance. And knowing these punks, they’ll morph the process so that you have to go to the Obamacare
exchange marketplace (oh, you didn’t get the word? Just like when Progressives so trashed their identity and switched to Liberal (and then went on to trash that so they’ve switched back to Progressive), the Obamanauts have figured out that exchange is now so negative, they moved to “Marketplace” so as to appear to be “free market” – as if a government created and mandating everything could ever be a free market). Gun insurance at an Obama marketplace – yeah, that premium is gonna suck.
4) Secure storage – gotta gun, getta safe. Feinstein started it with her S.150 (P. 20):
(aa) SECURE STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE REQUIREMENT FOR GRANDFATHERED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.—It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to store or keep under the dominion or control of that person any grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, will be accessible to an individual prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under subsection (g), (n), or (x), or any provision of State law, unless the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is—
(1) carried on the person, or within such close proximity that the person can readily retrieve and use the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon as if the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon were carried on the person; or
(2) locked by a secure gun storage or safety device that the prohibited individual has no ability to access.’’.
And when I read that, I first laughed and said “How do they expect to check up on that?” and then I read it again and panicked “How do they expect to check up on that?”. Well now, thanks to the Democrat Obama devotees in Washington State – we now know the answer: HOME VISITS! Yes sir, live in Washington and own a gun, you still need a safe. And get a free once-a-year house call from your local Sheriff. No RSVP invitation needed – they’ll be like your second ex-wife when you’re late with the alimony check (or your long lost relatives if you hit Powerball) just showing up at the door, no knock needed (make sure you are dressed appropriately!). From the Seattle Times:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
So when your liberal friends berate you for being paranoid, that NO ONE would ever want to come into your house, just send them the link. You see, it IS ok to be paranoid when the gun-grabbers say they’re coming home for dinner in their bills – don’t dress up for they’ll be bringing those special cuff-links (key not included).
At this point, on a more serious note, all kinds of alarm bells and sirens should be going off in your heads – this is not just the Second Amendment, this is also the Fourth and Five Amendments as well. This is the way with Democrat Progressives – there is NO thought as to any kind of Constitutional boundaries. Why do politicians (seemingly everywhere, with very few exceptions) never keep that Important Thought in their head as they are writing their bills (er, how does this line up with our State Constitution AND the US Constitution)? Why is it that that slough off that responsibility onto citizens?
Yes, you read me right – avoiding the primary responsibility and then having to have citizens realize “this is not right, this is not Constitutional; why do WE have to baby-sit these morons that sounded so good on the stump?” Why is it that people have to spend their time and money just to put right that which should have never been writ wrong?
It also means and puts teeth into the phrase “ever vigilant”. And add in “as far as you can through them”.
Oh, sorry, that – I forgot all about that 6″ armored steel plate 12″ from your head with my test heave-ho…