To Preserve Gun Rights, We Must Replace the Second Amendment is the headline topping an essay by townhall.com‘s Justin Haskins. Need I say any more? I don’t need to. But I sure want to . . .
Removing the “militia clause” is the only “improvement” you could make to The Second Amendment.
Not because the clause stipulates that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for an organized militia. It doesn’t. Nor because the militia clause’s use of the words “well regulated” empowers the government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t.
The only possible reason to remove the militia clause: to shut up willfully ignorant gun control advocates who use the clause to hoodwink gullible Americans into believing that the Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit ANY infringement on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
But as nettlesome as the militia clause may be, gun rights advocates should leave the Second Amendment the F alone. Opening it to modification — by popular vote no less — would make Pandora’s decision to open Zeus’ gift to her brother seem like a good idea. [Hint: it wasn’t.]
So WTF Justin?
The United States needs a new amendment governing gun rights, and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law.
This, coupled with clarifying language that makes it more difficult for federal authorities to restrict gun rights, would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it. But it would also ensure citizens in states where guns are valued—which, by the way, is most states—are guaranteed from ever having their gun rights taken from them by a Supreme Court controlled by left-wing justices.
Such a scheme would likely result in some gun owners losing their ability to purchase or possess some or possibly all guns. But it would also protect gun owners in the clear majority of states and turn those states into safe havens for those who want greater firearms freedom. It’s not a perfect compromise, but it’s probably necessary to ensure the long-term survival of gun rights, and maybe even the country.
Absolutely! Let’s let the states make all the individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution null and void if the majority of their population decide that society is better off without them. That’s the America I want to live in! [/sarc]
Unfortunately, that’s the America I live in right now.
What ability does a Hawaiian resident have to bear arms? NONE. The state hasn’t issued a concealed carry permit (an unconstitutional provision on its face) since the year 2000. How easy is it to get a permit in New Jersey? Go sing.
What guns did the California legislature decide its citizens can’t keep and bear in California? How many states allow the cops to confiscate guns from citizens without prior notice and due process?
When it comes to civil rights, there are already two Americas. And yes, they are politically incompatible. But the idea that you can fence off state governments who piss on the U.S. Constitution, to protect the rights of residents of lawful states, is beyond naive. It’s ridiculous.
If you want a way to destroy our country Justin, congratulations. You’ve got it. Thankfully, you’re alone in that. But what happens next is anybody’s guess. One thing’s for sure: it won’t be pretty.
Go ahead and amend the US Constitution if you can, Justin.
Just don’t “reinterpret” it at me.
Article V is basically the only option left, just saying
Well, actually the next to last option… 😉
I am a big fan of how hard it is to amend the constitution. It’s the very bedrock of our country, and should only be changed for things that are nearly universally accepted, important, and long-lasting.
Aren’t you embarassed by the fact that Prohibition was enacted via amendment, rather than via some manner of legislation? Wouldn’t you be embarrassed if they decided to throw something in about “The foundation of our country rests on the principle that someone can use the bathroom of their choosing” on a whim?
Now, there are matters that I would prefer to be enacted and would require constitutional amendment (balanced budget amendment and/or GDP-indexed cap to government spending), but even if I agreed with Justin that “NY/CT/CA/MD/IL Gun Owners can go to an even more unpleasant place for eternity”, for example, I still don’t think that there’s a reason for an amendment.
And, as we’re finding out now, members of both parties are leery of the armed populace, so this is far from the right time to propose your amendment if you want us to agree.
It’s not that hard. The SCOTUS just changes the interpretation when they want to change it. The commerce clause is a good example. The linguistic drift of the definition “regulate” made it easy.
SCOTUS has been doing that stuff since the beginning. It made up judicial review powers out of thin air for itself. http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
Note in my first post I specifically said, “Don’t reinterpret it at me”… That’s my entire point. If you can amend the constitution… go ahead and do so. It’ll be difficult, but if you believe in this to put in the effort, feel free to try.
One interesting example of interpretation, to me, is the fourth amendment.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This has been interpreted to mean “any products of an unreasonable search/seizure shall not be used to convict the person whose privacy was invaded”, but AFAIK there’s nothing to stop them from kicking the door in and ransacking the place if they’re after something other than a conviction (let’s say you think your grandmother fell down and want someone to go there to make sure there’s no problem… is her right to be secure in her person and her house protected if they can just enter if not looking for evidence?)
Note: I Am Not A Lawyer nor am I attempting to play one on the internet.
Haven’t we been told recently that any “states rights” arguments are supposed to be a dog whistle to Republicans to reinstate the Jim Crow laws, or something like that?
Uh, Jim Crow was a Jackass party invention. Not the GOP.
Willful ignorance is silly. Strom Thurman was a Democrat then. Later he was an independent. Then a Republican.
And he dropped his support for Jim Crow when he became a Republican:
The Dems have always been more racist, in long, medium and short term history. Johnson and JFK both opposed Eisenhower and the GOP’s civil rights act.
Hear a lotta ‘whatta we do?’ ‘whatta we do?’ and hand wringing in all of that. The only problem you have with gun-grabbers in your local/state/federal government is:
THAT THEY DON’T FEAR YOU ENOUGH. It’s the only real problem of a ‘civil Society’, but it can be overcome.
Regardless of how your Fing POS neighbors to the left and right of you fail you, your government can be replaced under the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
Tell your stupid POS neighbors who needed a job to go the F home, and when they don’t, you can proceed with whatever gets you a new guard for your security.
Think this won’t work? Well, you can always eat the eleph. . . err, donkey in small chunks. You can find a map of the small chunks here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/11/report-donald-trump-to-hang-portrait-of-electoral-college-landslide-in-white-house/
Keep it up, Joe, they just might haul you off (laughs nervously)
Look, at what point does Joe become “if you see something, say something”? If we knew he was a teenager, we’d probably be tempted to report him.
Joe, you sound like a school shooter in the making. Take some meds and try meditation.
Joe isn’t the problem. He just illustrates the problem.
That problem is that America is divided against itself to a degree not seen since about the 1830s. We’ve become others to ourselves. It’s gone too far.
However, though it’s much too late to work within the system to fix things, it’s still years, perhaps decades, too early to tool up and take to the streets. Hence your reactions to Joe, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
The Parkland school shooting just demonstrated that saying something if you see something is just a waste of time.
The bullsh_t of all of it is you all just rail’d against me harder than you do what I am opposed to.
I don’t aspire or compare, but you should read Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty” speech in its entirety. St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.
Revolutionary sh_t there.
Crazy school shooter sh_t.
You should, must read Patrick Henry’s speech from September 1788 that was in opposition to ratification of the Constitution because it did not adequately protect the rights of the people.
Thanks for motivating me to re-read some of that stuff.
“You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.” – Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788)
I found all of the September stuff. My second coffee isn’t doing its thing this morning. 🙂
No article on Trump announcing unilateral EO banning semiauto firearms, I mean bump stocks, really?
Lol… wake me up when Trump is done trolling.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. You can worship at his feet if you want.
All I know is he says whatever he thinks will make him popular right this minute, and he doesn’t have any real beliefs to speak of. If throwing my rights under the bus will benefit him, then he’ll do it in a heartbeat.
LOL, wake me up when Trump proposes gun control. LOL, wake me up when Trump passes gun control. LOL, wake me up when Trump enforced gun control. LOL, wake me up when Republicans lose power.
Really, man? What would it actually take for you to believe a NYC bred and raised blueblood with a history of supporting gun control, might actually support gun control? Jesus, at least if Hillary had been elected guys like you would be locking arms to oppose whatever stupid panacea was being pitched…just like after Sandy Hook. Look, I was wrong about Trump’s chances of being elected, but at least it made sense how he pulled it off toward the end. Absolutely nothing about Trump’s actions since the shooting have pointed anywhere but gun control, and using NRA spokesman as a way to ‘soft-sell’ it to us in advance in order to break the edge. Even if these measures ultimately fail or are struck down in court, it doesn’t change the fact he’s behaved like a full-on Democrat when it comes to guns these past couple weeks. Just because it comes from Trump’s lips does not make it anything but what it is.
Thank you for that video link.
Here is Trump openly insisting on gun control and telling everyone not to worry about the NRA because “they are on our side.” There’s some serious truth… those demanding gun control and tyranny working together; conservative, liberal, Trump, and the NRA.
The longer this goes on, the less and less likely it seems Trump is playing some game here… he’s openly talking of fighting the NRA. And not for the reasons many here would approve of. Trump is about to get the same harsh lesson the last to gun grabbing presidents got. If he turns his back on us then he deserves it, and we start again in 2024. To hell with this gun grabbing statist Shit. We didn’t vote for this.
Even the NRA seems to have gotten the message, too painfully late, that an attack on bump stocks is an attack on all semi-autos, and have mellowed out that rhetoric. It sure looks like Trump used the NRA & LaPierre to pitch the idea of a bumpstock ban months in advance after Vegas, to gun owners from a voice they trust, where it could normalize in the public debate enough to reduce the outcry when the ban came subsequently. Trump’s memo the other day said as much (was months in the making)
I’m not even sure the NRA will weather this one very well, unless they shed a lot of leadership in the near future
When it comes to civil rights, there are already two Americas. And yes, they are politically incompatible. If you want a way to destroy our country, congratulations. You’ve got it. One thing’s for sure: it won’t be pretty.
You know, I thought I was just one of the crazies thinking the USA is headed towards civil war. Now my two grown kids now think the USA will have a civil war in the near future and no, I did not coach them in the slightest. It really is becoming very obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that the USA is going to tear itself apart.
Once the conservatives are pushed far enough it’s going to look like sack of Constantinople.
Oderint dum metuant.
Embrace the coming storm so you will not be caught unprepared. Consider not supporting organizations that make preparing more difficult, if not illegal.
Gee and the DONALD just stated ” sometimes you have to FIGHT the NRA”…after this 71year old said “I’d run in that school(unarmed!) Mebbe the NY liberal is showing his true colors. Would Donnie change the SECOND AMENDMENT😡?
“Don’t worry about the NRA, they’re on our side.” -D. Trump
Is it me, or does Haskins looks vaguely Ferengi-like?
A) …would permit states to issue stricter gun bans…
Well there it is.
B) Such a scheme would likely result in some gun owners losing their ability to purchase or possess some or possibly all guns.
Eenee meenie minee moe. Catch a gun right by the toe. Nope, you’re out. NEXT!
Here are the two Americas:
1) I have guns
2) Get off my property
Wait, that’s still one America.
This is guy is incredibly stupid.
I guess he did not heard how many times the second part of 2A is a independent clause.
Gee… I thought we settled this “states can ignore the bill of rights” garbage when we took away the Demokkkrats’ slaves.
The Democrats aren’t done with slavery yet. They want more slaves, this time they’ll be brown instead of black. They want to bring them in “to do the jobs Americans won’t”. Like, say, picking cotton?
Bringing in illegal aliens to work harsh jobs in the sun, and keeping them under threat of exposing their illegality… is slavery.
Except for the part where they get paid. And the part where it is illegal to hire an illegal immigrant, so using that against them will get the employer in trouble. And they’re free to find a new job whenever they want (often times under a new SSN so they can collect unemployment on 1 while collecting a paycheck on another). Yeah, doesn’t really sound like slavery to me.
This sort of ignorance is why young people shouldn’t be allowed to vote until and unless they can pass a test on the basics of constitutional law.
The SCOTUS has used something called the “incorporation doctrine” since the days of Civil Rights to “incorporate” federally recognized rights upon the states. In one example, because the SCOTUS and federal law recognize the many free speech cases at the federal level as “incorporated,” state laws that run afoul of this body of case law are unconstitutional.
So, to the RKBA issue:
Heller v. DC found that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to own and bear a gun.
Then, McDonald v. Chicago was the “incorporation” case that forced the city of Chicago to recognize the rights upheld in Heller.
Since these two decisions have been handed down, that’s it, it’s done, the states are now bound to recognize an individual right to own a gun, just as they are forced to recognize the right of free speech upheld by the SCOTUS at the federal level.
This recent shooting has brought to the fore the full depth and breadth of the stupidity of this nation’s youth. I’m talking industrial-grade stupidity, the sort of stupidity that leaves adults gob-smacked at how these twerps are able to cross a street without killing themselves. I’m talking a level of stupid that kills entire civilizations.
“Since these two decisions have been handed down, that’s it, it’s done, the states are now bound to recognize an individual right to own a gun, just as they are forced to recognize the right of free speech upheld by the SCOTUS at the federal level.”
Correct in theory but incorrect in practice. States have and still do willfully ignore SCOTUS rulings unless they are enforced upon them. Thus far the federal government has declined to enforce these rulings on the several states and some states have chosen to ignore the rulings. There was a time when states might not have liked a ruling but they obeyed it. Today they openly flout their disobedience as a badge of honor and, generally, they get away with it. I mean, sanctuary states and cities have existed for decades and no one has really done much about them.
“This recent shooting has brought to the fore the full depth and breadth of the
stupiditylevel of indoctrination of this nation’s youth.”
The problem is that there are states willing to accept that you have a right to keep A gun–but not THAT gun. So (maybe) you can keep your revolver, but not your AR/AK.
Sure. Just wait, when they are done banning semi auto rifles, they will turn to handguns. Final goal – total civilian disarmament.
Correction: Final goal… complete enslavement.
I have stated something similar here before:
“culture is stronger than law”
That is from the Talmud. Most people will ditch codified law if people around them, especially authority figures, ditch code as well. There is no way around it – you got to change the culture. Correlation does not equal causation but I am pretty sure that lack of dads in this country either caused this mess or both messes drank from the same fountain.
Well this proposal plainly is not going to happen.
However, if it did it wouldn’t be a “popular vote” in the classic context of that term. It would either be an Article V convention or a regular Amendment process. The regular ol’ method requires a 2/3rds majority in the House and the Senate. An Article V Convention requires the legislature of 2/3rds, or 38 States (at present), to approve the Amendment.
150 Democrats are now on record of not only wanting to ban so called “assault weapons” but every semi-automatic firearm made.
I’d like to see the text of this bill; it sounds kinda confused. If you are going to ban all rifles and pistols with detachable magazines, why would you need to ban feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds? Seems unnecessary unless you are going to grandfather in all existing firearms, but simply ban their future sale or transfer, which I take it to mean no inherited semiauto firearms either.
But hey, you can have a Garand, just not a 1911.
This is not a serious attempt at passing a law; it is political grandstanding to allow them to blame the Republicans when the bill fails.
Because I guess they will let us plebs keep weapons already in possession…for now.
Here’s the link to the press release, which includes a link to the bill: https://cicilline.house.gov/press-release/cicilline-introduces-assault-weapons-ban-2018
My favorite part of the announcement is this:
Therefore, I’m sure it’s reassuring to everyone that the bill specifically exempts the U.S. government, The Atomic Energy Agency especially, and all current and retired law enforcement. It’s important that those people be able “to rapidly kill large numbers of people”, as we all know.
Banning every semi-automatic ever made… does that include revolvers? They fire a round with each pull of the trigger, it’s just that their magazine is round instead of flat.
So does this gun ban in effect ban absolutely every firearm ever made, except for a pump-action or break-action shotgun? (effectively)? What’s left — muskets? Black powder?
It says firearms with a detachable magazine.
The writers of the bill are on the record pushing Australian model, that includes steps, or an incremental strategy, toward banning all self loading which includes revolvers now. Even for 150 year old single shot shogun design now you need to “probee a need” like may issue ie no issue.
And if you look at the statements in support of the bill they are specifically talking about guns designed to kill people, revolvers fit that bill more than any other type of gun.
Good, watch them lose pro-gun democrat’s votes. While nut jobs and terrorists are the shooting the place up or running people over Americans will be buying more guns.
Is there a pro gun democrat?
Look, the Democrat leadership has made it very clear that they will destroy anyone that openly opposes their platform. They do not tolerate opposition within their rank and file. If a Democrat claims to be pro-2nd amendment, they are either lying for the sake of propagating propaganda, or they are ignorant of the future punishment their master is going to inflict on them for defying their edict.
We are far from the wording of a amendment being problem 1.
Is this guy the paid mouthpiece for inter-state gun smugglers? Follow the potential money.
pandoras box in 3…2…1…
although ill agree to a rewrite of the 2nd amendment when the lefties agree to a rewrite of the 14th amendment
that is to say…never
THATS how republicans should argue this:
“anytime you want to have a sit down about the 2nd amendment thats fine but we have to talk about the 14th amendment at the same time”
and just watch those infanticide supporting baby killers skulk right out of the room
start a fight in their own ranks between the anti gunners and pro aborters and grab a bag of popcorn
shed some light on EXACTLY how handcuffed that party is to killing 1,000,000 babies in america every year cutting up their bodies into little pieces to be sold off to the highest bidder for research and then throwing the rest like so much garbage into the landfill or included in medical waste to be burned in a power plant
if the us army invaded another country and did to the women and babies there that planned parenthood does to women and babies here it would be called war crimes it would be called crimes against humanity there would be tribunals
people would hang
I can’t help but wonder how many more mass shooting we are away from openly caving on the RKBA itself. If this latest one is any indication, it can’t be much longer.
The malitia clause is CRITICAL.
The prefatory clause of the 2A seems to me to be suitable to it’s intended purpose, as is.
I invite my fellow voters to consider what the 2A would mean if the prefatory clause read: “A ________ being necessary to _________, . . . ” where you fill-in-the-blanks with some other proposed objective and compelling need. E.g., a high-protein diet being necessary to good health, . . . Or, A keen eye being necessary to good sportsmanship and entertainment, . . .
Picking any alternative language you might think politically-correct, then – in my opinion – the highest objective to which arms might be kept and borne would be fixed by the alternative language. Perhaps hunting, or individual self-defense. As such, a reasonable argument could be made that only double-barreled shotguns or handguns would be the “arms” contemplated by the substantive clause.
As the language reads now, it’s clear that the highest objective contemplated would be to repel invasions, put-down insurrections and secure the republican form of government prescribed by the Constitution. The “arms” required to make the “militia” “well-regulated” – i.e. effective, are therefore to be construed to have the highest level of protection.
At the present moment, that should be deemed to mean the AR-15 rifle. Perhaps – in 1775 – it might have meant the smooth-bore musket. We can’t say with any certainty what tomorrow’s military doctrine might imply. It might mean the M2 .50 BMG or some AOW; or, the Star Wars light saber.
We are not interested in preserving constitutionally the wholesome activities of hunting or fowling nor marksmanship as an Olympic sport; albeit any of these may contribute indirectly to the military efficiency of the militia. Instead, we ARE interested in the “security of a free state”; and, it is precisely this objective that we find already given in the existing prefatory clause.
I always kinda liked “Congress shall make no law…”, from the First Amendment. It just has a nice ring to it. If it were to be rewritten I’d start with that. Then continue with, “restricting”, followed with, “the right to keep and bear arms.” I’ve always liked that bit, too. Maybe tack on, “of any type, in any manner, at any time, in any place, for any lawful purpose.”
I’m actually happy when I hear gun grabbers talk about replacing/amending 2A. Because if that’s the best solution they got, they got nothin’. An Article V on 2A doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell for multiple reasons.
If an amendment to the United States Constitution were to read as follows:
“A well nourished militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to grow and store food shall not be infringed.”
Would the right to grow and store food belong to:
1. Only people actively serving in the militia?
2. Only to farmers who supplied the militia?
3. Only to people who were not in the militia?
4. To everyone, whether in the militia or not?
I would say #4, though I’m guessing that’s the expected answer.
This is the Bill of Rights, so the list should consist of rights that citizens have, that citizens are told will not be taken from them, that the State (or union of states) will have current/future motive to take from them, but that must not be taken from them. The militia was mentioned, as it was arguably the most needed use of arms, and its mention supports the need for the statement that this right “shall not be infringed”.
Parenthetically, arms are used in various militias of various size and scale, against various adversaries. Certainly today anywhere from random thuggery up to federal tyranny are threats, but there are many in between. I get the feeling there were more “in between” threats in that day, but I need to do more research. Also with the advancement of firearms technology, a smaller group of people can form a legitimate defense, or at least obstacle, to invasions of smaller scale. We’ve heard of stories where even one person with a rifle and proper gear was able to kill several intruders or invaders (who had the intent to murder), sometimes surviving and sometimes not. (To address the offensive use of modern firearms: non-firearm methods of offense or terrorism were more deadly then, and still are.)
I read where the generals from the U S met with some generals from Japan after the war was over and one of the topics was ” Why didn’t Japan attempt or plan an invasion of the U S mainland ” ? The Japanese generals replied that it would be crazy to invade a country with millions of armed people. Our founding fathers were very intelligent, not nit wits like we have in D C and else where now.
A new Constitutional Amendment changing gun Rights?
Dream on, shit for brains- it isn’t going to happen.
At least it’s honest-the only way to relate guns IS by changing the Second Amendment. If they think they have the votes, they should try. They don’t have the votes.
The 2A says “arms” not “guns” because the point is, for self-governing citizens:
1 – You own your own life. That includes the prerogative to protect yourself at need. Government is just a creaky, badly performing mechanism of last resort for doing the few things where it is the least-bad, bad alternative. Self-defense and self-ownership are not among these things.
2 – Republican self-government is for people with better things to do with their time: we get the most space, at the least overhead, to go live our lives in. Everything else is worse.
It’s your prerogative to look out for your own life however you think best. That means what arms you choose. One hopes, “arms” with something close enough to parity with whack-jobs and overlords to discourage them from appropriating your life.
They’ve got nothing better to do, so they’re willing to work hard to appropriate your life. (They pretty much suck at doing everything else.) So “arms” to let you be effective enough to discourage them a bit, while leaving you some actual life left over to go live your life with.
Of course every citizen of a Republic these days ought to lean toward an AR-style semi-auto, in a medium-power cartridge. They are the most effective small arms for self-defense we have right now. (So says the DHS.)
3 – The 2A is phrased that way to mitigate against the drift of endless rationalization. The amendment is phrased “… the right … shall not be infringed…” because governments, big thinkers and all manner of other “betters” will always, inevitably have some convoluted “just the tip” argument (or voice only they can hear) about why just this one little “adjustment” is in the end better for everyone, even the people infringed.
No. You overhead people have time on your hands to come up with some rationale for whatever stupid thing you’ve already decided on. So, to get you to leave us alone to live our lives, it’s phrased “…shall not be infringed…” to try to contain you losers with nothing better to do.
Well stated… spot on!
You know, we really ought to put forward in legislative language actual proposed amendments every time one of these people proposes something like this.
They certainly have the courage of their confusions. We should maybe help them with that.
You said “most ridiculous.” Don’t encourage these people.
The Second Amendment was drafted in 1788 because Patrick Henry and others did not support the Constitution because it described a form of militia that was not adequate protection of the rights of the people.
So the Bill of Rights was written and ratified [adopted] by 1791.
I was copied by several states as late as 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union. They coped it with one comma. Since schools don’t do a good job teaching U.S. history I’ve altered the Second Amendment very slightly and so that the intent is clear and unchanged.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ? [yes,therefore]
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I live in the People’s Demokratik Socialist Republik of Maryland, where the “Gun Safety Act of 2013” is the law of the land thanks to an overwhelmingly Democratic anti-gun General Assembly. People who live in all of the adjacent states may purchase so-called “assault rifles” and standard magazines for them; I cannot, though at present I may legally keep my AR-15 and its standard magazines that I obtained before the passage of the act. Now we have a bill pending in the General Assembly which if passed will give the State the authority to seize magazines which have a more than 10-round capacity, heretofore “grandfathered” as legal for those who purchased them prior to the passage of the “gun safety” bill. Nibble, nibble, nibble. Is there any doubt that the “slippery slope” will eventually lead to the seizure of now legally-owned “assault rifles”? Not in my mind. It is a virtual certainty.