HEART (Help End Assault Rifle Tragedies) Act Revealed. Again.

“Two members of Congress, including Arizona’s Ruben Gallego, are sponsoring a bill to keep high-powered guns out of the hands of children,” AZ’s 12news.com reports. “The bill was introduced after the children of Charles Vacca gained national attention in their quest to ban assault weapons from being used by kids.” High-powered. Assault weapons. What more do you need to know? Other than the peg upon which the pols are hanging their “do it for the children” attempt to subvert Americans’ gun rights . . .

Vacca, a White Hills, Arizona gun range instructor at Bullets & Burgers, was shot and killed by a 9-year-old girl who lost control of an Uzi submachine gun while he was teaching her on Aug. 25, 2014.

His kids, who forgave the little girl in a letter, launched the initiative “We Have a Voice” calling upon others to let their state and federal legislators know that kids should not have access to high-powered weapons.

The campaign caught the attention of Rep. Gallego and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts who introduced the new legislation in July.

It’s called the HEART (Help End Assault Rifle Tragedies) Act. Click here to read the bill which “prohibit(s) the transfer, loan, or other disposition of a machinegun or semiautomatic assault weapon to an individual under 16 years of age.”

Wait. Semi-automatic “assault weapons” as well? Yup. The bill’s definition of an “assault rifle” is a cut-and-paste job from Massachusetts’ “assault weapon ban,” including rifles with a shoulder thingie that goes up and the usual list of named firearms.

As our Nick Leghorn reported previously, the bill aims to cut off America’s gun culture at the knees, ensuring that the next generation of shooters would have zero legal trigger time behind America’s most popular rifle type. The reason for the renewed politician and media interest in the fortunately doomed bill? Money.

The children also plan to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Bullets & Burgers and other related businesses, in order to “hold them and the industry accountable.”

The lawsuit will coincide with the two-year anniversary of their father’s death on Thursday, Aug. 25.

“They want to send a message to the gun entertainment industry that if it engages in the unsafe practice of giving children [ED: anyone under 16] assault weapons and someone is hurt or killed, there will be consequences,” a spokesperson for the family said.

The “gun entertainment industry”? Like Machine Gun Vegas and the Texas Firearms Festival? Just so. While the plaintiffs sniff a payday, the bill’s sponsors really want to hamstring anyone anywhere who wants to teach their children how to exercise their natural, civll and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Heartless bastards like you. [/sarc]

comments

  1. Once again , a solution in search of a problem…while the criminal slaughter continues in Chicago and other large liberal/Progressive/Democrat run cities.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Nothing under the sun that the evil (D) can’t solve by adding their stupid, communism, socialism, tyranny, evil, bs.

      F (D) voters who are worse.

    2. avatar AnOregonian says:

      Solution in search of a problem? Only if you think they are being genuine in their concern.

      Instead, it’s exactly as Nick put it, an attempt to snuff out gun culture by forbidding the next generation from partaking. That’s very much a problem (in the Dem’s eyes) and this is the solution, maybe not the final solution, but it’s a first step.

  2. avatar strych9 says:

    Dumb, da, dumb, dumb, dumb.

    1. avatar MiniMe says:

      More like: “Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb.”

      😀

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I was trying to reference this. (Apologies in advance to any Mormons who might be offended).

  3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Actually I agree with the idea that she shouldn’t have had that Uzi, but not due to her age. You don’t give a kid with a learner’s permit a Mustang Cobra and say “have at it” the first time they’re driving. The place that let her shoot it was negligent because they didn’t take adequate precautions to make sure she could handle it before letting her shoot it full auto. She could have gone and shot any one of a myriad of weapons and had a good time/not killed someone accidentally in the process. Something like an AR-15 would have been a great choice though.

    This is as said a law that is in search of a problem overall, such events are statistically rare.

    1. So the “Gubament” should solve the problem of an instructor who really screwed up and paid for it with his own life? The principal of comparative fault attributed to the dad/instructor should wipe out any recovery has family gets awarded in court. I hope he had life insurance. I apologize in advance, sometimes I get troll-ish, and yes I’ve been to law school though, now I am a teacher. P.S. My neice drove a 300 horsepower Mustang GT age 16 to 18, she traded for a 350 horse V6 to take to college. My nephew (much younger) really likes 1911’s in 45ACP.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        I agree. A law can neither assess risk for you, nor aleviate you of the responsibility to do so for yourself. The instructor made a judgment call and was wrong. Sad story, but no place for government or do-gooders with feelz to get involved.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I concur, or agree but for a different reason.

          HEART is not trying to stop bad things from happening. They are trying to stop the “good” [i.e., the ownership / use of firearms (perhaps the only last good left between us).

          Your “guberment” (your government) is nothing more than your a-hole neighbors who needed a job, they are attempting to use legislation (not open to any office) to oppress you. Don’t allow it, it will only sort itself out in a more littered eventuality and history has not previously allowed it to happen without the usual (albeit sometimes spectacular) batch of violence.

      2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        No, the government does many things and they do it poorly. As you noticed at the end I said this was a law in search of a problem really.

        I think the parents should have exercised better judgment in what they did, and that the range operators should have asked more questions to make sure that the product they offered was a suitable fit for the experience level she had. None of which involves any sort of legislation.

        I’m willing to bet that in both cases both kids weren’t just given the reigns with no experience, no evaluation of their readiness and told to go ahead. The parents probably took steps to make sure that they were ready to use the tools they were given in a safe manner. It has little relevance to age, I know people who shouldn’t drive or own a gun and they haven’t been teenagers in decades!

        Please read all the remark before making conclusions. You know what they say about ASSuming.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “No, the government does many things and they do it poorly.”

          There is *one* thing the US Government does competently.

          Really. I’m not kidding or am I being sarcastic.

          The air traffic control system.

          Perfect, no. It is, however, arguably the finest in the world at keeping mid-air collisions at a minimum considering traffic density.

          But that is the *only* the government does competently…

  4. avatar George Tseng says:

    so per the new legislation they want to introduce, their own family estate would have been sued due to the negligence of their own father, the instructor?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      That’s where I see the blame to lie.
      Since it was a work related suicide, they should receive any workman’s comp benefits and life insurance they have coming to them, but that’s it.

  5. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    The usual…Government and it’s unqualified representatives run amok ! Attempting to destroy liberty! Till the US voters wake up and get these idiots out of office! These Politcians should receive all the mental health care to help them with their phobias, and Mental illness ! Once there thrown out of office!

  6. avatar jp says:

    Agreed. It was negligent to give a child a full auto anything. And sadly he paid for that error with his life.
    I still Don’t get the whole assault rifle verbage. An m4/m16/ak47 with select fire or full auto capability is and assault rifle. The ar15 and semi auto AK are not.
    Are liberals really that dumb that they can’t tell the difference.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      It’s more that they try to keep their low information votes from knowing the difference.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      No, they are not. At least not completely. They are that determined to ban all firearms, and blurring the distinction helps their cause.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Precisely. Gun grabber Josh Sugarmann wrote as much:
        “Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

  7. avatar NorincoJay says:

    No one wants to take responsibility anymore. Pass the buck to everyone else. I feel bad that these kids lost their dad. But the sad fact, that they can’t digest is it was their fathers fault. No one else. Luckily no one else was hurt.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This!

      Their own father screwed up royally and no one else is to blame.

  8. avatar jwm says:

    The real tragedy of assault rifles is that the .gov freely hands them out to the worlds bad guys, cartels, isis, etc. while at the same time trying to stop decent folk from having them.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Bingo. And then some of them go missing…

  9. avatar neiowa says:

    HEART act. Thought perhaps that was a targeting mandate. One way to be sure.

  10. avatar Anonymous says:

    The little girl lost control of a machine gun, not a semi-automatic. But yeah – way to slip some of your gun-hate into the legislation.

  11. avatar Captain O says:

    They (the Government) don’t care. It doesn’t matter as long as their “cause” is advanced. We know they are in error but it makes it seem as if they “care”. (It is the “intent” that matters, you know).

    It is all obfuscation and bovine ordure.

  12. avatar FedUp says:

    I don’t know the details of this shooting accident, but:

    On the surface of it, a 9 year old girl blasting the instructor whose care and guidance she’s operating under leads me to believe that the children of the deceased should be suing the estate of the deceased if they want to make the responsible party pay.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Having seen the video, I now know that one person is 100% responsible for the death of Charles Vacca, and that person’s name is….Charles Vacca.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        Fed, thank you for making my point for me. Charles Vacation screwed the pooch and his family unfortunately should receive nothing but condolences.

  13. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Help End Assault Rifle Tragedies.
    Never mind that the gun their incompetent instructor father handed to an inexperienced little girl wasn’t an assault rifle. It wasn’t even a rifle. Still, they have to do something. It’s always someone else’s fault.

    I look forward to teaching my grandson to shoot my AR-15. Once you get past a .22LR, it’s the perfect next step. Adjustable stock, soft recoil, red dot, bipod. And so much safer than putting a pistol in his hands.

    1. HEFAPT just doesn’t have the same ring to it. And HEFAPPED was already taken.

  14. avatar Larry says:

    HEART and GAG on Friday night with a bottle of cheap wine true love

  15. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Well, after you limit children’s operational access to far deadlier motor vehicles, then ….

    Well, honestly, then you can STILL go pound sand. The gubment is not my daddy. Or yours. Life is risk.

  16. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Typical…. You don’t have enough training to handle firearms responsibly and shouldn’t have them. And now we’re going to make it even harder for anyone to get training.

    These people need to be publicly mocked. They need people to very literally point at them and laugh.

  17. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    This is exactly as stated. an attempt to keep young folks from learning about something that the left doesn’t want them to know.

    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/18/researcher-use-gun-violence-restraining-orders-confiscate-guns-older-citizens/

    This is part of the other end of it. We are going to take firearms from the oldsters so they can’t be passed down and or make them illegal to pass on. This is a generational war.

  18. avatar Other Tom in Oregon says:

    Nice try libs. My six year old knows the basic operations of an AR 15 and in several years will probably get a chance to shoot it if he proves himself responsible with or without anyone elses permission. My kids, my rules. The government doesn’t know the first thing about my children and couldn’t tell me how to raise them if they tried.

  19. avatar c4v3man says:

    Where did the father go wrong to raise two children to be tools of the anti-gun elite? Not only did Charles Vaca fail to keep his range safe, but he created two sob stories to be abused by the media.

    That being said, if the fatherless children honestly wanted to waste the time to limit children’s access to machine guns, then that’s one thing. Considering it will literally “save one life” every century, it’d be a gross waste of taxpayer dollars to devote any time to this issue whatsoever. But instead they’re wanting to ban access to intermediate caliber modern sport rifles, which are great for beginning shooters such as *gasp* children.

  20. avatar jug says:

    It takes no intelligence at all, to father low intelligence kids!

    Proven over and over, every day!

    A real man has to know his limits.

  21. avatar Troutbum5 says:

    Assault rifle tragedies? Like losing one in a boating accident?

  22. avatar Dave says:

    That incident was a long time ago. They have to go that far back???

    They need to spend less time coming up with cute names for bad bills, and more time actually getting the facts. For example, you are far more likely to be killed in a car accident, yet all of these dumb idiots drive cars.

  23. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    I am happy to announce here on TTAG, i am sponsoring the SUCKIT (Stopping Unwatched Children Killing is Terrific) Act of 2016.
    This landmark bill requires all pro-gun control politicians to undergo mandatory re-education, training, and proficiency testing for all classes of civilian firearms. For far too long, the hoplophobic political elite have pushed gun control laws down the throats of the law abiding free people of our nation with nearly all knowing absolutely nothing about the topic they are voting on. It is because of this intrinsic lack of knowledge, that our national media continues to paint the issue of firearms ownership in America as divisive, it robs an open and frank discussion among well informed citizens of this nation and forces people into pro vs against positions. It is for this reason that this bill which by my estimates will drop the horrid incidence of kids using guns to harm others or themselves by at least 51% in the first year alone. (I use the same jiggery pokery mumbo-jumbo the left uses to conjure stats out my butt)

    Please reply if you feel it is past time for Congress to SUCK IT (Act of 2016). Thank you and good night!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email