And, Right on Schedule, Assault Weapons Ban Introduced

And, Right on Schedule, Assault Weapons Ban Introduced

And, Right on Schedule, Assault Weapons Ban Introduced

As he promised his constituents in Parkland, FL last week, Congressman Ted Deutch (D) – along with Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) – introduced a bill in Congress to ban assault weapons Monday afternoon.

(The Hill’s tweet gives the credit to Democrats.) (Insert smiley emoji.)

Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) –

According to The Hill:

The legislation, called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, was introduced less than two weeks after the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school that left 17 people dead. The gunman used an AR-15 assault weapon during the shooting, one of the many firearms that would be banned under the bill.

The legislation would make it “unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

However, the ban wouldn’t apply to semi-automatic weapons that were “lawfully possessed” when the measure went into effect.

Adept at asserting the obvious, The Hill notes…

The new legislation is the latest attempt by Democrats to implement a ban on the guns since the Federal Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004.

…while NOT QUITE spelling out what exactly is IN the proposed legislationYou’ll notice as you read, the article repeats “assault weapons,” ad nauseum. WHAT is an “assault WEAPON” as it is so broadly defined? Officially, here’s your link to the bill write-up: Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.

In the interest of brevity, clarification and blood-pressure medicine takers everywhere, lemme ‘splain the basics. The Washington Examiner got a good start on cutting through the simple speak when their article appeared. First was an explanation of what “weapons” means to Democrats and pandering GOP representatives. “Assault WEAPONS” means damn near everything in your gun safe.

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Cicilline’s legislation names 205 specific firearms that are prohibited, including the AK-47 and AR-15.

How ’bout them apples? It will have a registrywhich also would require the attorney general to keep a record of semi-automatic assault weapons linked to crimes.” (Wouldn’t you figure that was already happening?) (I digress.) There’s also a nasty little section liberal-leaning media tries to fuzzy over. While it seems forthright and commonsensical enough on its face…

But “lawfully possessed” semi-automatics purchased before the measure took effect would be grandfathered in.

…there’s damnation in the details.

“GREAT!” you say. “If they EVER have enough votes to pass this abomination, at least I’m not going to jail!”

But your kids are, if you think you’re going to pass down those legally purchased weapons. That’s in there, too. No tender, “And this was Grampa’s open field shotgun” moments for your descendants. Within a generation, as my son points out,

“…virtually all semi-autos would be illegally owned, even under grandfathering.”

All these weapons are registered, so think of the potential for a California-style gun confiscation scheme. The justification is built into the law – FEDERAL law. Or if you think you’re going to have them in a house without a gunsafe to store them in, while others who cannot possess such weapons live there?

Think again.

It’s hard to separate the emotion from the facts in the current climate, but, shameless attempts to brazenly use tragedy to strip weapons from law abiding citizens, it might be a good time to refresh what the last assault weapons ban brought us, benefit-wise. Which was…nothing. There was NO massive decrease in crime, Columbine still happened and Chicago still sounds like Bolivia during a coup. What happened after they let it lapse and LAW ABIDING Americans could once again purchase what weapons they wished as they saw fit?

Crime has been on a constant sloop downward. As the number of guns skyrocketed, thanks to Obama and Co., crime rates dropped.

How is this possible? I have been assured the NRA (of which I am a member) and all the filthy gun owners of this country are murderers, who hate children, no less. Yet, the FACTS are clear. And I guess we pretty emphatically aren’t the homicidal maniacs we’re painted to be EVERY. DAY.

There was a moment of reactive common sense in Tallahassee today, though. The Florida Legislature voted down an assault weapons ban amendment to gun regulation legislation. In the comments, the usual suspects are “never visiting Florida again.” (Come on. As if they ever had or that we would miss their sticky drink-sodden, inert corpses at Panama City this spring.)

I salute my law makers here for holding firm (the FL House votes tomorrow on a similar measure) and there is little interest in D.C. to pursue this current piece of…legislation. However. It pays to be vigilant and realize that tides shift, sometimes without warning. (Ask Hillary.) We have to defend our Second Amendment RIGHT – it’s not a “wish,” “want,” or “privilege” – it. Is. OUR. RIGHT. Against the forces that would strip it away all at once – like this effort – or chip at it unmercifully. The NRA did not shoot those children. As a law abiding gun owner, I did not shoot those children. I know YOU did not.

Yet we are painted as the problem, and expected to pay the price for incompetence and criminality.


Written by

  • Hank says:

    The wording of the law would even ban semi-auto pistols if they have removable magazines, regardless how many rounds they hold. I don’t know of any pistol made after the early 1900s that doesn’t use detachable magazines. And it would ban semi-auto shotguns if the stock could be detached. Again, there aren’t any such shotguns made in which the stock can’t be removed.

  • GWB says:

    The gunman used an AR-15 assault weapon during the shooting
    No. No he did not. He used a semi-automatic sport rifle in a small caliber.
    An “assault rifle” would be select-fire, meaning it could fire in a fully automatic or “burst fire” mode (usually 3 rounds fired with a single trigger pull), or in semi-automatic mode.
    An “assault weapon” is a nebulous category that doesn’t really make sense.

    detachable stock
    Ummm…. except for old-style break-action shotguns, ALL shotguns have a “detachable stock” unless you define that as “without tools” or something similar. As a matter of fact, almost all modern longarms have detachable stocks so that you can spend money and customize them.

    Crime has been on a constant sloop downward.
    There’s a word for a “sloop” going downward: sinking. So, it still works. 🙂

    I salute my law makers here for holding firm
    Except they didn’t. They voted to treat adults as children – again – and raise the age for legal purchase of a longarm to 21. If they can’t buy a firearm or booze, then how the hell do you think they’re old enough for the military? Or vote?
    (BTW, someone under 21 needs to sue on the basis that they are a member of the militia according to federal law and the state constitution or law, and this law prevents their carrying out those duties.)

  • MikeyParks says:

    The Democrats are all about looks over substance. They want to LOOK like they’re doing something when in fact they’re doing nothing but scoring points with their fellow derps. Their plans to outlaw weapons that LOOK a certain way are ludicrous. Like ground effects on a six-cylinder Mustang don’t make the car a mph faster, the trimmings on an AR-15 don’t make the weapon an iota more dangerous than Grampa’s semi-auto deer rifle. But they look so SCARY! Their LOOKS make the snowflakes shiver with fear.

    • GWB says:

      Well, Mikey, it looks like this time they’re not going to bother with those cosmetic bits. They’re just going to outlaw all the scary-looking guns, and their cousins, too! This attempted ban would work entirely off it being a semi-automatic (rifle OR pistol) with a detachable magazine (or a big built-in one).

  • Scott says:

    Never forget, nor allow them to convince you otherwise, no matter the pretty platitudes they attach to it, the intent of the left is to completely ban private ownership of firearms, and confiscate ALL of them. Anything else they say on the subject is a lie, plain and simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner