Posts Tagged ‘assault weapons ban’
Often times, when writing about gun rights, I have stated that it is not a Democrat or Republican issue. And while that may be true when speaking about the voting populace, the everyday Joe, it does not seem to be the case in government. For weeks now, all I have seen are headlines of gun control legislation passing this committee or that, a state legislature here or there and always down party lines. While there are exceptions, the voting record makes it clear. The Democratic Party is no friend of the Second Amendment.
Almost all shooters say they hate politics, but the sad reality is that politics affect gun access and availability more than we want to admit. Despite most shooters’ expressed dislike of these topics, political stories in The Shooter’s Log are some of our most-read items, including these top-10 posts that clearly show that battles over gun ownership never seem to go away.
I just finished listening to the latest congressional committee hearing regarding SH-216—Sen. Feinstein’s latest attempt to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I am struck by the blindness exhibited by the anti-gun members of the committee and those testifying.
Rather than looking to capability or crime statistics, Feinstein’s bill starts by attempting to ban weapons by name.
Before you decide to tar-and-feather and run me out on a rail, please read the entire article…
I just listened to the feel-good press conference about another so-called Assault Weapon Ban. It was sickening to hear the useless babble from the uneducated, uninformed lawmakers in this country until the logic struck me like a lightening bolt and really opened my eyes.
While the Nation teeters on the precipice of the fiscal cliff, certain lawmakers would rather spend their time and effort dealing with feel-good politics that will have no effect rather than dealing with the Nation’s business. If you want to be angry, let’s keep it focused where it belongs—solidly aimed at those who intend to pass legislation that will not fix any perceived problem while limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
A Run on Firearms
Maybe. We thought there was a run on firearms back in March. I say thought, because as robust as sales were in March, those figures do not hold a candle to today’s numbers. There was a huge run that started just before the election. It increased substantially after President Obama’s re-election. Numbers were still high right up to the Sandy Hook shootings when they went off the charts setting new records.
The FBI NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) background checks confirms these numbers. Of course, NICS only tracks sales through Federal Firearms License holders. Guns sold between private parties do not require a NICS check. As of this writing that is still the case. However, this is the sale the politicians have dubbed the gun show loophole. Look for this to change in the near future.
Another myth thrown around by politicians is the number of NICS and its relationship to the actual number of new guns on the street. NICS is a background check on an individual, not the sale of a weapon. Likewise, it does not distinguish whether the sale was of a new or used firearm.
A fact we can believe is that demand is higher than manufacturers can supply. Hi-Points are selling out faster than supply—need I say more—never mind highly sought models from Colt, Daniel Defense, Rock River, Springfield Armory and others.
Ammo Shortages or Cuts?
Working at Cheaper Than Dirt, you get know a little something about ammo sales. Ammo prices are going up—there’s no two ways about that. Certain metals are in shorter supply driving up prices, but most of all ammo is flying off the shelf faster than manufacturers can produce it. As suppliers attempt to meet demand by ramping up production and authorizing overtime, costs increase and prices follow.
Why is demand going up so fast? I just heard another call from New York Democrat Chuck Schumer saying military style ammunition and military grade ammo needs to be banned. I am not sure where to even start with that one.
The military adopted the .223 over the .308 in the early 60s i.e. over 50 years ago. The argument stated the 7.62x51mm was too powerful, offered excessive recoil and the weight of the ammunition decreased fire rate. How does any of that equate to calls to limit the .223 cartridge?
Today’s military uses a 62-grain bullet. Originally, they selected 55-grain but determined it fragmented to a degree that it did too much tissue damage. Also the requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 600 yards ruled against the 55-grain.
So what are Schumer and others really against? The .223 is not as powerful as the .308. The 55-grain .223 is more devastating to tissue than the 62-grain model used by the military, which Schumer calls out as needing regulation. The truth of the matter is that rimfire .22 LR cartridges are responsible for more civilian deaths than any other single caliber on a historical basis, along with 9mm, .40S&W and .38 Special over the last 15 years or so. Well, the military does use the 9mm—is that what Schumer really wants to ban? I must say, his lack of knowledge—and common sense—makes it very confusing.
Evil Black Rifle vs. Modern Sporting Rifle
Call it what you want, it is all semantics and feel-good politics anyway. Ask anyone who served in the military—you won’t find a single military member who carried a semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15 into combat. None will claim to have used one while training in boot camp or slung over their shoulder while on sentry duty—never mind for an assault.
Are MSRs an assault weapon? I recently read a report on a test of a Toyota Camry and Ford Fusion for NASCAR’s Sprint Cup Series. Should I run down to my local dealership, throw down my $22k and submit my application to race Daytona?
The cars have the same general appearance, same name, made by the same manufacturer, and share common parts—both have tires, engine, steering wheel and so on. Both will exceed any speed limit in the United States. Yet, the anti-gunners and politicians are not interested in banning the Ford Focus—and don’t even get me started on military-style assault vehicles such as the Hummer on our unprotected city streets!
I often see exotic sports cars and sport bikes designed to go 100 mph in second gear and top out at over 170 mph without breaking a sweat. The shooters at Columbine—which took place right in the middle of the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban—used a car to get to their crime, as did Aurora and Sandy Hook and the rest. Perhaps all of these tragedies could have been prevented with better regulations of automobiles. I suppose the UAW would never let a politician proffer that ridiculous suggestion, but who is stopping them from making the same distortion with the substitution of guns for the cars?
Is Obama, the UN, or the EPA Coming for Our Guns?
Coming, yes? Will they get it? That depends on you. Obama is certainly working with the U.N. to enact a Small Arms Treaty that would effectively outlaw our guns and subvert the Second Amendment, but it isn’t that easy. This is more sabre rattling than substance.
Gun control has proven to be a losing proposition for most politicians on either side of the aisle. The Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” in Article II, Section 2. Fat chance Obama would get two-thirds for that kind of treaty.
The second attack is going to come in the form of legislation. Again, there is the problem of voter resentment and the retribution most legislators would receive. After the Crime Bill of 1994 (Assault Weapons Ban) the Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of the bill were hammered at reelection.
Obama also has the problem of political capital. Convincing the number of politicians necessary to vote in favor of a major gun ban would be extremely costly to the other programs and initiatives the President wants to champion and would be a long shot at any rate.
Finally, this leads us to the biggest threat of our Second Amendment rights—presidential executive orders. The principle sounds more ominous than it may be. Presidential executive orders have been around since before the signing of the Constitution in 1789. It went unchallenged until the 1950s when Truman tried to bring all of the steel mills under federal control through a presidential executive order. The Supreme Court slapped it down stating the president was trying to make law rather than clarifying an existing law or act of Congress.
Using parallel thinking, the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment. Obama trying to outlaw guns or sales of guns through an executive order would be paramount to making a law, not clarifying an existing law and would be in direct opposition to the Supreme Court’s previous rulings. Therefore, President Obama’s chance of getting an executive order past the Supreme Court would be next to impossible—even after what happened with Obama Care.
I would tentatively say our gun rights are safe for the foreseeable future. Likely, the biggest threat would be to high-capacity magazines. However, it is important to note that our gun rights are ONLY safe because we—the voters and gun owners—are vocal in opposition to any legislation that limits our rights. We have shown this through telephone calls, letters, petitions, lobbyists, the NRA and other organizations and our statements via the ballot box.
Our Second Amendment right will always be secure as long as “we” continue to defend our rights against all aggressors foreign and domestic.
As the next four years looms over us and with the threat of a new Assault Weapons Ban possible, none of us at CheaperThanDirt.com are taking our chances. Over the last few days, and today (November 7, 2012) we are buying lower receivers and high-capacity magazines for ourselves.
Well folks, we have four more years of Barack H. Obama. Whatever your personal political views, the people have spoken, and a Democrat remains in the White House. As it pertains to our business, gun control was somewhat of back-burner issue during most of this election. However, the President gave brief glimpses into the future of firearms legislation during the second presidential debate.
Some would call it fear mongering, others would accuse me of sabre rattling. I would just call it plain fun, common sense and an excuse I can use to buy a new gun without getting beat up too bad by the wife. Whatever you call it, the possibility of Obama getting reelected and another assault weapons ban is a reality that I intend to take preemptive action against.
By now, everyone in the firearms community should be aware of President Obama’s desire to reinstate the assault weapons ban if reelected. President Bill Clinton signed the original assault weapons ban into law in 1994. It deemed certain makes and models illegal, as well as certain cosmetic features, such as pistol grips and telescoping stocks. If you owned an ‘assault weapon’ before the ban, it was automatically grandfathered, however, manufacturers could no longer make guns with certain characteristics. Due to supply and demand, the assault weapons ban drove firearms and magazine prices sky high.
As a gun owner, do you consider gun rights when you vote? Leave comments below and tell the world why.
On September 4, 2012, the Democrats released their official platform on gun control, stating that they fully support reinstating the assault weapons ban. Just a few months prior to this, President Obama, while speaking in New Orleans, said that he believes “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals—that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.” It has been eight years since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired. If President Obama serves another term, will he stand by his party’s position?
Debate over the recent U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the Colorado Cinema shooting has spurred a spate of legislative talk about banning a variety of firearms and shooting accessories. In particular, there’s renewed political efforts to try to enact a new “Assault Weapons Ban” and a “large-capacity magazine ban.”
Gun advocates in states that still have assault weapons bans have been wondering when some brave soul will sue to overturn those laws. Under the landmark DC vs. Heller case, the Second Amendment was interpreted as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms in common use, subject to reasonable restrictions. Now, solo practitioner Victor Quilici and a small but dedicated legal team have a good test case in Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court just ruled earlier this month that Wilson v. Cook County will go to trial.