Legislation Protects Guns?

Fortunately for gun owners in many states, the enthusiasm for further Second Amendment infringements has subsided somewhat in recent months. This is a major reason, in addition to graduation, that I have not posted much recently. Still, some thoughts came to mind while driving home yesterday night.

During the debate over amendments to the Manchin-Toomey bill, California’s Dianne Feinstein claimed that her “assault weapons” bill protected 2,200 firearms. While attempting to sell this euphemistic garbage to the Senate along with the rest of America, the Senator completely ignored the fact that several thousand more firearms would be transformed into contraband by her bill including, but not limited to the numerous popular arms listed by name in the following image:


To say that the bill “protected” firearms is insulting enough, but was only part of her effort to thoroughly alienate law abiding gun owners. She then went further to explain that the list of 2,200 exempted firearms was compiled to make it “crystal clear” that hunting and sporting weapons would not be affected. Of course, we all know that the Second Amendment is not about either of these activities, but a further problem exists with this claim, one that requires no substantial knowledge of constitutional history. That is, several of the most popular sporting rifles are banned by name in the Feinstein bill, including the ubiquitous AR-15 and semi automatic AK variants that have grown significantly in popularity with both sports shooters and hunters alike. Perhaps next time Senator Feinstein can spare us the condescension and be a little more honest about the fact that she really wants to strip lawful gun owners of their preferred firearms for both self defense, recreational shooting, and competitive matches.

Lastly, the proposal called for “safe storage” of grandfathered “assault weapons”. As an advocate of safely storing firearms myself, I strongly encourage all gun owners to invest in a safe of some sort, if only to lessen the chance that firearms will be compromised in a typical “smash and grab” style break in. However, to require gun owners to purchase a safe and lock up firearms when not in use is not only draconian and unenforceable, but completely in violation of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling that explicitly struck down similar “safe storage” laws in Washington D.C. on the basis that keeping all guns locked up and inaccessible renders these weapons useless for self defense.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s