House Democrats Back New Ban On Semi-Automatic Weapons

[phill4paul]

The next time some libtard tells you they don't want to ban your guns show them the proof. There it is in black and white. Nothing about "we need to have discussions," or "we are not talking about banning guns, just restricting them from those with mental illness, or any of the other bullshit they lie through their teeth about.


A majority of Democrats in the House are signing on to support a new assault weapons ban aimed at making certain weapons illegal. From the Hill:

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.

The Washington Post reports 156 of the 193 members of the House Democratic caucus are already in support of the new bill and is a sign that Democrats are going all in on this:

The legislation, introduced by Reps. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), gained support over the weekend as most Democrats were at home in their districts. There’s no evidence that the Republican-controlled House would bring the bill to a vote, but the list of sponsors offers hints about whether the party’s politics are moving.

Democrats can’t bring this to a vote now but the implied message this November will be ‘Elect us and we’ll ban guns.’ If they are able to take back the House, that would get them part of the way there, though they would likely face a filibuster in the Senate, even if Democrats manage to take that chamber as well.

There’s also a chance this move could backfire. This is one of those issues which will not only sell more guns but will also rally the people who support them into action. As I suggested a few days ago, whether or not this works out for Democrats (or Republicans) may depend on whether or not there is another mass shooting involving an AR-15 over the next few months. If that happens, the issue will stay at the forefront of media attention. If not, the media will eventually move on to another issue. November is still a long way away.


https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/26/house-democrats-back-ban-semi-automatic-weapons/

[Anti Federalist]

It took a majority GOP government to get to this point, where this is feasible.

Ronuld Raygun banned guns.

H Bush banned guns.

W Bush banned guns.

Look for a knife in the back from our "friends", very shortly.

[Danke]

From the Internetz:


Something to consider when asking for reinstatement (or new version) of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The chief complaint liberals had with this bill was the grandfather clause, of which very few people today are aware, and the media is completely ignoring. Because of the grandfather clause, ALL weapons manufactured on or before the day in which the law took effect were exempt from the law. Currently, there are close to 2 million AR-15's legally owned in the United States. I haven't taken the time to research to see how many other "assault weapons" are currently legally owned, but your imagination is probably fairly accurate. NONE of these weapons would be included in a newly legislated ban.

Why? Because of the Constitution, and I'm not talking about the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms. I'm not talking about the 4th Amendment which guarantees that our property will not be seized without probable cause (and that means probable cause against the individual, not in general.) Not by the 5th Amendment which states "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Although all of these Amendments must be considered when drafting such a piece of legislation, the key to the grandfather clause lies in the Constitution itself, Article I, Section 9, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Here is a good definition of an Ex Post Facto law: "Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed." You can't legally possess something one day and suddenly be a criminal for possessing it the next. If a new Assault Weapon Ban were passed tomorrow, it would have zero effect on the weapons currently legally owned.

[timosman]

This is H.R. 5087 - To regulate the importation, manufacture, possession, sale or transfer of assault weapons, and for other purposes -
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087 Cicilline and 164 co-sponsors, all DEMs.

[phill4paul]

From the Internetz:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Sure, I understand "ex post facto." And as it stands this shit probably won't happen. But, I have long held that it is a multi-generational approach to disarmament through indoctrination and phased legislation.

[Brian4Liberty]

There’s also a chance this move could backfire. This is one of those issues which will not only sell more guns but will also rally the people who support them into action.

Just about everything the useful idiots want to do backfires, so there's that.

Unfortunately, the media has done a great job of demonizing the AR-15 and automatic weapons. No less than 3 Republicans I know with little gun knowledge have recently stated "we don't need AR-15s, what are they?".

[pcosmar]

I'm Prohibited.

I'm waiting for ya all to do something,, I'll pick up something from the dead.

[shakey1]

The urgency to rush into add'l gun laws will only grow exponentially with each shooting.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0f/f2/fe/0ff2fedb9cc39c8cb71acf1cf543f969.jpg

[phill4paul]

I'm Prohibited.

I'm waiting for ya all to do something,, I'll pick up something from the dead.

I'm planning to get right on that next Tues., possibly Wed. Depends on the weather.

[CCTelander]

It took a majority GOP government to get to this point, where this is feasible.

Ronuld Raygun banned guns.

H Bush banned guns.

W Bush banned guns.

Look for a knife in the back from our "friends", very shortly.


Virtually every major victory that the victim disarmers have achieved at the federal level in my lifetime has happened because of the collusion of "pro-gun" Republicans. Every fucking one. Republicans are worthless for defending freedom in general, and gun rights in particular. Always have been, always will be.

[TheTexan]

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.

Seems reasonable. Noone really needs more than 10 rounds for constitutionally protected hunting activities.

And even constitutionally protected Olympic sport shooting really only needs 5 rounds.

[TheTexan]

From the Internetz:

Although all of these Amendments must be considered when drafting such a piece of legislation, the key to the grandfather clause lies in the Constitution itself, Article I, Section 9, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Here is a good definition of an Ex Post Facto law: "Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed." You can't legally possess something one day and suddenly be a criminal for possessing it the next. If a new Assault Weapon Ban were passed tomorrow, it would have zero effect on the weapons currently legally owned.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

That's true, except the above rule doesn't apply to any guns that have the potential to cross state lines (Commerce Clause)

[CCTelander]

Virtually every major victory that the victim disarmers have achieved at the federal level in my lifetime has happened because of the collusion of "pro-gun" Republicans. Every fucking one. Republicans are worthless for defending freedom in general, and gun rights in particular. Always have been, always will be.


I should add to this that in MOST cases the gun control that got passed could not have been passed without Republican collusion, so in a very real sense we are saddled with those abhorent laws because of Republicans. They always stab us in the back when they're handed a majority. Always.

[phill4paul]

They always stab us in the back when they're handed a majority. Always.

^^^^^

[RonZeplin]

Seems reasonable. Noone really needs more than 10 rounds for constitutionally protected hunting activities.

And even constitutionally protected Olympic sport shooting really only needs 5 rounds.

Just buy a stack of Tyrant Tags and do frequent mag changes, and you're good to go!

[seapilot]

They are going for broke and know it wont pass the Republican majority. Its pure political posturing to say look republicans hate children etc. and we tried to get rid of evil gunz. The Repubs did the same with Obamacare repeal, when they actually could pass they did not.

[phill4paul]

They are going for broke and know it wont pass the Republican majority. Its pure political posturing to say look republicans hate children etc. and we tried to get rid of evil gunz. The Repubs did the same with Obamacare repeal, when they actually could pass they did not.

Yup.

The power doesn't lay in repealing or instating the big laws. It lays in millions of regulatory fatwas. Neither side wants major laws repealed or instated.

[Swordsmyth]

They are going for broke and know it wont pass the Republican majority. Its pure political posturing to say look republicans hate children etc. and we tried to get rid of evil gunz. The Repubs did the same with Obamacare repeal, when they actually could pass they did not.

It's going to cost them in the mid-terms, no matter what they think gun control is not a good issue.