AR-151209548.jpg&MaxW=315&MaxH=315

Democrat Rep. David Cicilline is a made member of the House Civilian Disarmament Caucus. After the Colorado Springs shooting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, the former Providence, Rhode Island mayor took a measured, nuanced view of the crime, blaming the gun and calling those icky black rifles “…weapons of war, not tools of self-defense. They serve no purpose other than to kill.” So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Cicilline, along with 90 co-sponsors, has introduced a new “assault weapons” ban bill . . .

As thehill.com reports,

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, which Cicilline will introduce Wednesday afternoon, would ensure that no such guns are manufactured while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons.

But this isn’t just another garden variety, 1995-style AWB. The sponsors’ big concession to that Constitutional inconvenience otherwise known as the Second Amendment is that they’re not planning to come after the rifles you already own.

Under the legislation, gun owners who already have assault weapons would be allowed to keep them, but they could face challenges reselling them.

The House Dems apparently would like to see a new super-duper ultra-extra background check system in place for those trying to sell these awfullest of guns.

The bill would intensify background checks for people looking to buy any of the estimated 8 million to 9 million assault weapons that are already in circulation.

Eight to nine million? We’re not sure, but there are probably eight or nine million ARs in Texas alone. But that’s neither here nor there. We haven’t seen a copy of the bill yet, so we don’t know exactly what an “intensified” background check would look like in practice, but you can bet your bottom round of .22LR it will be laborious, inefficient, and slow.

One more thing the Ocean State’s favorite son included in the bill: killing the 72-hour limit on the current NICS check system.

The law would also close what gun control groups refer to as the “Charleston loophole” that allows a gun dealer to sell a gun after three days if the FBI does not complete a background check in that timeframe.

That means when the basement-dwelling drones who work in the FBI’s NICS branch get behind (or if the boss simply wants put a non-legislative de facto waiting period in place), would-be gun buyers will just have to wait. What could possibly go wrong?

With the GOP firmly in control of the House and this being an election year, Cicilline’s bill has as much chance of seeing a floor vote as I have of affording a Perazzi MX15L any time soon. Still, it’s always nice to know where the other side stands. And this year, they’re only too glad to tell us.

Recommended For You

78 Responses to House Dems Introduce New ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Bill

  1. “They serve no purpose other than to kill.”

    Mine make holes in pieces of paper. Not a joke, that’s literally what I do with them.

    Isn’t the purpose of an office building to house office workers? I mean you could throw someone off of the building and kill them, but you would hardly say the building serves no other purpose other than to kill.

    So this man is lying.

    Lying, and plotting to take away our firearms.

    Isn’t that interesting?

  2. How long until Cornyn, or someone like him, makes a counter-proposal/compromise, and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory?

    • Yep. After all, if I offer you a full loaf of tyranny, you are supposed to meet me in tbe middle and then we compromise on only a half loaf of tyranny.

      Tha’s the way compromise works. (In the minds of tyrants, ie progressives/statists.)

  3. “…weapons of war, not tools of self-defense. They serve no purpose other than to kill.”
    Then why does every LEO pictured in the mass media seem to be carrying one?

    • Exactly. So, if an agent of the federal government carries a weapon of war, wouldn’t that make that agent’s organization a standing army? Wouldn’t the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 come into play, and wouldn’t that suggest that if this agent is convicted that he should serve a 2 year prison sentence? I say it does. But, here is the key question: Who get’s to decide what is a weapon of war, what it not a weapon of war…and why does that matter in relation to the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? Sorry, I do not see anything in the constitution that says the 2nd amendment only applies to the weapons of peace!!!

    • Because police routinely need to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. How else are they going to enforce the law?

      /sarcasm

  4. “That means when the basement-dwelling drones who work in the ATF’s NICS branch get behind (or if the boss simply wants put a non-legislative de facto waiting period in place), would-be gun buyers will just have to wait. What could possibly go wrong?”

    Boy, are you gullible! Just like the first time this “background check” bullshit came around, without that 72 hour limit, or SOME limit, step the next is to fire every person in the NICS chain and shut off the electricity, there will never be another approval. Ever.

    • You missed the sarcastic tone in “what could possibly go wrong,” methinks.

      That 72 hour limit, I am sure we agree, is an important thing precisely to avoid rights-denial-by-footdragging.

    • So you really believe that if there were no 72 hour limit to a NICS check that an EO or internal memo wouldn’t come down to increase the amount of time it takes to process?

      By the way, I have a bridge to sell you!

      • Removing the 72-hour limit would remove any incentive an agency has to conduct a background check in a timely manner. So, yes, whether through bureaucratic laziness or systemic malice, background checks would get slower and likely become backed up.

  5. I have an unshakeable feeling that the “intensified background checks” would entail checking to see if the buyer is on any unspecified number of “watch lists” in addition to seeing if the buyer has a criminal record.

    Color me jaded.

  6. Democrats like Chris Christie will allow you some Rights when they ” Feel ” it’s OK.
    As shown in an article in –CT Daily Mirror .com — on 12/11/15 They Confirm that New Jersey is already using Federal No Fly List(s) to approve or deny gun sales.
    — NJ Bill # – A – 3687 , signed by Governor Christie 8/8/2013. —

  7. “They serve no purpose other than to kill.”

    Mine are apparently defective. Might sue the manufacturers because they didn’t get up by themselves and kill people.

    • I can’t be the only one that is fine with that definition. I certainly wouldn’t have paid all the money I have to buy something that couldn’t end a threat to my life when i needed it to. Neither social utility, nor someone’s irrational fears of inanimate objects are valid arguments against my 2nd amendment protected right.

      • I can’t be the only one that is fine with that definition.

        “Kill” != “Stop a Threat”, so you’re already contradicting yourself.

        Intent to kill requires a tool (the firearm), an agent (the person using the tool, and who determines the intent of its use), and a target (an animate entity capable of being killed).

        By design, the purpose of a firearm is to expel a projectile via combustion forces: no more, no less. It can only be construed to be “intended to kill” when in the context of being used by a person intending to kill, against a target capable of being killed.

        It is the user who determines the intent of the expelled projectile. The vast majority of said projectiles are used to punch holes in paper, to explode water-filled bottles, to shatter clay, or to ping pieces of steel. None of those projectiles kill. Are the firearms used to expel such projectiles defective?

        Even when used to stop a threat: the vast majority of expelled projectiles either don’t hit the targeted threat, or else merely injure/incapacitate that threat; they do not kill. Are the firearms used to expel such projectiles defective?

        • Not really a contridiction. Stopping a threat is a spectrum that runs from intimidate into inaction all the way to kill. If the defensive weapon used can’t reach the end of the spectrum, its not an effective defense weapon.

          But yes as far as your definition of a firearm, I mostly agree. They are designed to expel a projectile as some velocity. But you can then just as easily ask what is the intent of expelling the projectile at high velocity. Its dangerously close to an exercise in semantic evasion.

  8. If these weapons were not able to kill, they wouldn’t be very good at defending my family, myself and my home. So, I want to keep my weapons that are able to do that as they provide me the best chance to survive bad people who want to do harm.

    This bill may be DOA in this congress, but I fear the day that the Democrats take back the house and senate. Garbage bills like this will sail through the process, making our lives a lot more “interesting”.

  9. Democrat Party Continues To Whip Dead Horse, Remind Public Of Their Contempt For Mere Peasants.

    There. Fixed the headline for you.

  10. They can introduce all the bills they want ,they’re not going to pass and even if they did,I will not comply. As far as gun sales are concerned,I never intend to part with any of my guns……………….ever.If anything,I’m going to buy more guns and ammo.

  11. Why is a ban on the ability to every transfer a firearm, like in California with pre 2000 firearms, not considered a seizure of property? How is that legal?

  12. “They serve no purpose other than to kill.” . . . your a-hole progressive, liberal evil blue house of (D) bag neighbors who need to take your RTKABA because they can’t take the other rights without doing so.

    You need whatever weapons you can garner, so that, when you feel these progressive communist (D) bag a-holes have chucked enough of the Constitution for you, YOU CAN CHUCK THE REST.

  13. Cicilline’s father John is a mobbed-up mob lawyer.

    Cicilline’s brother John lost his license to practice law and served 18 months for shaking down his law clients and had his driver’s license suspended for 6 months for refusing a sobriety test (his law license was just reinstated — in Rhode Island, shakedowns are approved tactics for politicians, cops and unions). Brother John’s partner, who also served time for the shakedown, is the son of a former Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice who had to resign after his mob ties were uncovered.

    And compared to Little Davy, the father and brother are princes among men.

  14. So, if I own one of these rifles and sell it or give it to someone in my own state, this law would not be applicable as I understand the constitution. It is not involved with interstate commerce and is my private property and, therefore, not subject to regulation by the federal government.

    Am I wrong here?

  15. So, let’s take a look at some numbers. “They serve no purpose other than to kill.” Right, sounds good… or probably not. Let’s assume 300 million firearms in the US, of which (conservative estimate) one in ten is some sort of “assault rifle,” “assault shotgun,” or “assault carbine”. Now let’s assume each gun fires a hundred rounds of ammunition a year. There are only about 800 criminal long-gun deaths a year, drawn from the typical FBI 8% of all firearm homicides. Let’s assume that “assault weapons” cause every one of those, which is doubtful. That would mean that, and check my numbers here, 99.999986% of all “assault weapon” uses are NOT killing people wrongfully. That number would inflate slightly if self-defense cases were added into the mix, and it’d inflate noticeably if hunting was also counted as “killing.”
    Let’s go back to our favorite analogy, motor vehicles. 256 million in the US in 2013, and 30,000 deaths. Only 99.9998% of cars in the US fail to kill someone. By that logic, they’re built to kill, far more than all “assault weapons” are.

    • How long until those evil “sniper rifles” with powerful scopes that can kill from a half mile away are banned? In other words, your average 30.06 Bolt Action hunting rifle. Gun grabbers are never satiated. We cannot compromise in any way, other than agreeing not to shoot them outright.

  16. Ya’ know I was just on FB saying this was real and some lunatic tried to claim it was just a rumour…and we needed “common sense’ reforms or the gubmint would seize all our gunz. Just like Dick “let’s talk limits” Metcalf…vote R even if you have to hold your nose. Lot’s of repubs suck but ALL dems hate your guns when they need funding.

    • uh, no, they aren’t. just ask Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer….the list sadly goes on forever…

    • Republicans, most of them, tend to be ashamed and humiliated when they are caught doing something stupid and they slink off into the woodwork. Democrats, on the other hand, use the same behavior as a stepping stone to higher office and job security.

  17. The idiots in the Dem party aren’t getting the memos: “assault weapons” bans are rapidly becoming passe’, even among the gun-grabbers. Even Slate and Vox are publishing articles pointing out that AWBs have no significant effect on gun-related murders, much less murders as a whole.

    • It would be so much better if it was on retardation, but even the Dems in their Anti-2A efforts admit that some mental problems make you a danger to yourself and others. Those people it is acceptable to hate if they cannot be controlled. Many Dems may be emotionally retarded in that they cannot see plain facts placed before their noses, but many more are dangerously mentally defective and their actions to defeat the Constitution and our Democratic Republic system of government are intentional.

  18. So what else is new with the Dims?? I just hope they are all holding their collective breathe and hell freezes over due to Climate Control.

  19. They serve no purpose other than to kill

    Well first it’s not true…. but even if it was true there’s some people that just need to be killed.

    There’s been a whole host of evil people over time that needed to be killed sooner than later.

    The world today has millions of people urgently in need of being killed.

    Just saying.

    • The French had a nifty device for dealing with wayward politicians. Only needed sharpening occasionally. Since it’s not a firearm, the Dems shouldn’t mind at all.

  20. Any weapon deemed so dangerous that it cannot be trusted in the hands of the citizenry, is a weapon so dangerous that it cannot be trusted in the hands of a government.

  21. Everytime they fly this flag, I buy 3 more lowers I don’t really need just in case. All they get when they do this is more guns in more hands. Not what they are intending I think.

  22. Weapons of war? Their only purpose is to kill? GREAT! That’s why I’d own one. So that if some thug declares a state of war on me or my family, I have the ability to make war back on that attacker. Every human being has the right to engage in a private war for reasons of self-defense. Self-defense involves going to war, just at a micro-level.

  23. Even if he were right, killing isn’t always bad; what someone had used one to kill the two Cali terrorists before they managed to fire any rounds?

  24. Dem-o-cracks. As in cracked in the head, the village idiots. Devoid of commoners’ common sense and purveyors of mayhem. War hammer to this one.

  25. “The bill would intensify background checks for people looking to buy any of the estimated 8 million to 9 million assault weapons that are already in circulation.”

    Technically, Assault Weapons only exist in seven states (CA, CT, HA, MD, MA, NJ, & NY), plus a few localities. For the rest of that free USA, the term “Assault Weapon” has no legal definition, so they don’t exist.

    Also, I take issue with the term “in circulation”. These aren’t dollar bills, ya’ll. They aren’t circulated. A very few are currently on the market, but the vast majority are private property, in private hands.

  26. “…weapons of war, not tools of self-defense. They serve no purpose other than to kill.”

    I see lots of Dems making this statement about guns these days. Every time I see it, I wonder what exactly they think self defense entails. If I use my handgun to defend myself, did it have some purpose other than to kill? Maybe I should use my shotgun, for which the purpose is apparently to blast through my front door, miss the bad guy and scare him away, according to Uncle Joe. Now I get it!

  27. What’s an assault weapon, again? I don’t think I own any. Surely my AR doesn’t count: it’s a low-power, small-caliber semi-auto rifle like any number of other varmint rifles….

  28. He is right. However, any weapon can be a weapon of war. Our founders knew this and it is the very reason they preserved our right as citizens to own them. The second amendment is direct and simple. I will assume a person who is smart enough to become a member of our government can read it and understand it. Therefore, I must also assume, that those members of our government who seek to INFRINGE on that right, know exactly that infringing is what they are doing. They seek to take and give rights as they see fit to whatever ends they desire. It may very well be, that they know damn well, that THEY ARE the people the second amendment was written to protect our rights from.

  29. Another northeast liberal insider: politically connected but utterly disconnected from real life, always willing advance his career in exchange for your rights. Par for the course for somebody who’s never had a real job.

  30. *blinks* “House Civilian Disarmament Caucus”

    Is this really a thing? And is there a reason this man isn’t being impeached for violating his oath of office?

Leave a Reply

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