[Editor’s note: The Democrats have gone stark raving made over their gun control agenda, which is not going to save them from being wiped off the map during the midterms, assuming we are allowed to conduct them. Here’s a letter submitted to the Wisconsin State Journal, which I anticipated they would not publish–and have not:
Democrats generally appear to be impervious to facts, where reason and evidence no longer matter. They never address the defensive use of guns but want to ban guns regardless of their benefits. As a professor of philosophy, I must confess to being dumbfounded at the non-rational stance they have adopted on ideological grounds.]
While approval ratings show that Democrats are losing hope of retaining their power in 2022 due to the unfavorability of their policies, gun control demands continue to be one of the top remaining unifying calls to action for the people who are remaining in the party.
“The worries of the Antoinette liberal elite—climate change, abortion on demand, transgenderism, strict gun-control—are not those that terrify the middle/ lower classes. The latter first want enough affordable food and energy and to be safe from criminals, ” Victor Davis Hanson said recently about the Democrat’s determined gun stand- and he is on to something.
Now there is news that House Judiciary Committee will be moving on the 2021 “assault weapons” ban bill that targets at least 45 specific AR-15 rifles and approximately 30 specific AK-47s, the legislation authored by Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-R.I.) assault weapons bill as H.R. 1808.
The text of HR 1808: Assault Weapons Ban of 2021
This bill makes it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD).
The prohibition does not apply to a firearm that is (1) manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) permanently inoperable; (3) an antique; or (4) a rifle or shotgun specifically identified by make and model.
The bill also exempts from the prohibition the following, with respect to a SAW or LCAFD:
- Importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession related to certain law enforcement efforts, or authorized tests or experiments; Importation, sale, transfer, or possession related to securing nuclear materials; and possession by a retired law enforcement officer.
The bill permits continued possession, sale, or transfer of a grandfathered SAW, which must be securely stored. A licensed gun dealer must conduct a background check prior to the sale or transfer of a grandfathered SAW between private parties.
The bill permits continued possession of but prohibits sale or transfer of, a grandfathered LCAFD.
Newly manufactured LCAFDs must display serial number identification. Newly manufactured SAWs and LCAFDs must display the date of manufacture.
The bill also allows a state or local government to use Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funds to compensate individuals who surrender a SAW or LCAFD under a buy-back program.
A Punchbowl News report that said the bill will be marked up Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee and Democrat leadership aides indicated “the bill could come up for a floor vote as soon as the last week of July.”
Breitbart reported about the timeline of the gun grab:
“The Washington Times suggests the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) June 23 pro-Second Amendment ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen puts all types of gun control in the crosshairs of gun rights groups.
On June 23 Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS issued a ruling in Bruen which struck down New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance.
Within the next 24 to 36 hours California and New Jersey dropped similar concealed carry permit issuance requirements in their states, and on July 5 Maryland suspended its “good and substantial reason” clause for concealed carry permit issuance.
The Washington Times suggests the Bruen ruling means gun control of all types will now face challenges and in some cases, it is already being challenged.
The Times paraphrases Justice Clarence Thomas’s emphasis on the importance of rulings like Bruen, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), saying, “The test courts must apply is whether a firearms restriction would have seemed reasonable to the founding generation that crafted and ratified the Second Amendment. If not, the law must give way to the Constitution.”
At this point, the Second Amendment Foundation is seeking to challenge a federal ban on handgun purchases by people 18 to 20 years old, and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is pointing to the Bruen decision as it seeks to have New York’s “assault weapons” ban ruled unconstitutional.
FPC claims, “There is no constitutionally relevant difference between a semi-automatic handgun, shotgun, and rifle. While some exterior physical attributes may differ — wood vs. metal stocks and furniture, the number and/or location of grips, having a bare muzzle vs. having muzzle devices, different barrel lengths, etc. — they are, in all relevant respects, the same.”
Moreover, on July 1 Breitbart News pointed out that SCOTUS vacated and remanded a number of cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii.
A challenge to New Jersey’s “high capacity” ban was also among the cases vacated and remanded.
Bloomberg Law noted that in remanding the cases Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “While that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.”
The cases were vacated and remanded in light of the Bruen ruling.
On January 13, 2021, Breitbart News noted National Shooting Sports Foundation numbers that there were “20 million firearms in private possession which Democrats label ‘assault weapons.’”
Those 20 million were a portion of the overall 432 million privately owned guns then in Americans’ possession.