Ammo For Sale

« « Gun rights for illegal aliens | Home | Gun Porn » »

Democrats introduce a ban on “assault weapons”

Press release right here. The bill goes after the following:

Bump stocks
Standard capacity magazines
Pistols and braces
Same language of the 1994 AWB
Prohibits the transfer of standard magazines
Adjustable stocks
California compliant stocks

Looks like a real wish list.

15 Responses to “Democrats introduce a ban on “assault weapons””

  1. mikee Says:

    I wait, definitely NOT holding my breath, for a reporter to ask DiFi or any other legislator supporting this crapfest how it gets around Heller and MacDonald, which declared unconsitutional any ban on classes of weapons in common use.

    I’m betting there will never be a reporter who asks this of any of them.

  2. Sigivald Says:

    Pure theater, of course. I doubt it can pass the House, let alone the Senate.

  3. Rivrdog Says:

    Opens a door. Someone file a formal complaint for Impeachment for every Senator who signed on to sponsor this Bill. Violation of 18 USC 242 is a High Crime, a felony. These 3 Senators have taken a Substantial Step towards the Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Authority. Probable Cause exists, and they may be arrested and booked by any Federal LEO.

  4. JTC Says:

    Well Magpul should make a buck as I’m sure pmags will be marked LEO if made after a particular time?

    Yes, that dumb shit didn’t work before, just gave dealers like me a windfall from theretofore valueless used 10+ magazines. Same for Assault Weapons too of course.

    You think they won’t try the same failed shit again? Come on, they are after all, classically insane.

  5. Ron W Says:

    No doubt such legislation EXEMPTS government hired guns and private armed security companies which protect the wealthy elites who push gun control against the People. That’s neither justice or equality which I thought the left was all for–so they say.

  6. Anon Says:

    Holy crap! I learned something from DiFi!: I didn’t realize ‘Thordsen stocks’ had a name. Time for some spite purchases!

  7. Tim Says:

    Masturbating in public again, I see.

    Thanks, dummycrats.

  8. Ron W Says:

    Part of law requires secure storage in an approved safe or with trigger lock of currently possessed “assault weapons”. How would that be enforced?

  9. one-eyed Jack Says:

    What war(s) is (was) the AR15 used in? Jack.

  10. Blue Says:

    SCOTUS already struck down “safe storage “ as unconstitutional. But that hasn’t stopped legislators due to a lack of teeth from the court.

  11. Sigivald Says:

    “Someone file a formal complaint for Impeachment for every Senator who signed on to sponsor this Bill. Violation of 18 USC 242 is a High Crime, a felony”

    Please. Just. Stop.

    1) “High crimes and misdemeanors” does not mean either “felonies” or “felonies and misdemeanors”. It’s a term of art for, roughly, crimes that are abuses or sales of political power and influence.

    And no, “but this is so unconstitutional it violates the Oath!” won’t work – because they seriously do think it’s Constitutional, and we do not want the precedent of “anyone impeaching anyone because they disagree on what the Constitution allows”, do we?

    Think real hard about where that precendent leads, and you’ll see why it’s not a precedent we have or want to have.

    2) 18 USC 242 does not make sponsoring bills that you think are unconstitutional into a felony. “Sponsoring a bill” is not “acting under color of law”, for one.

    “Color of law” is itself a term of art for the appearance of legal power, acting outside the law.

    It is not illegal to sponsor (or vote for) bills – even ones that if passed might not be Constitutional – or even ones that Absolutely Would Be For Sure.

    “Deprivation of rights” means, in 18 USC 242, those rights the law recognizes – and guess what rights the law stops recognizing the second such a bill passes? Thta’s right – the ones the bill just removed, legally.

    18 USC 242 is not a Sneaky Backdoor Ratchet to make sure Congress can never “weaken” a right via legislation. It was never intended to restrain Congress, and indeed, cannot and will not.

    (I completely agree that this bill is awful policy, and parts of it should be struck down by the Court if it passed, under the precedent in Heller, etc.

    But that’s irrelevant to 18 USC 242.)

    3) Chances of “any Federal LEO” arresting and booking them (do arresting agents do their own booking?) is … EXACTLY ZERO. As it should be.

    Just … stop. This is as bad as “shall not be infringed PERIOD!!!!” as a legal argument. It will never work, it shouldn’t work even if the Courts liked you, and it’s not what that law DOES.

    Acting like it’s a slam dunk gotcha doesn’t do anything but make you look a little cray-cray.

  12. Will Says:

    One thing we can do is work to control the narrative. The words “assault weapon” or “assault rifle” should never be used. They are Armalite Rifles or semi-automatic rifles.

  13. rickn8or Says:

    Wil, or “Modern Sporting Rifles” to use their 1968 GCA against them.

  14. JTC Says:

    When written, the term “Assault Weapon” is always capitalized and/or in quotes to denote rejection and derision.

    But I’ve always liked EBR’s for the same reason, plus it’s as easy to say as it is to write, and is slightly obscure, ideal for use in mixed company, sometimes eliciting a puzzled look and request for clarification. The look you get when you say Evil Black Rifle is fun.

    Yes I know toying with them is not productive, but I am so sick of this shit, I mean the AWB was 25 years ago and died a deservedly ignoble death 15 years ago. How many more EBR’s might there be in the National Private Arsenal now than then? Insanity.

  15. Ron W Says:

    “Assault” is either a criminal act or an offensive military tactic. For the latter, that necessitates a full auto weapon. Therefore “assault weapon” should correctly refer to a select-fire, full-auto rifle or weapon, not the millions of semi-auto rifles in private hands. The only “assault weapons on the streets” are carried by government agents. I would agree that government agents should be subject to the same laws as citizens so as to “get assault weapons off our streets”.

    “Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.” — James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 57.