Semi-Automatic Weapons Are Under Fire…Again

Clinton assault weapons ban feinstein semi-auto guns bump stock

courtesy politico.com and AP

By Roger J. Katz

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” – Yogi Berra

If you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the 2001 terrorist attacks. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama being elected as U.S. President. Some might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result was either shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.

But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable civil rights, a true watershed moment came in 2008 with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn’t be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.

But the Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less than it says. Sadly, the still pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.

Many defy and denigrate the Court’s imprimatur; politicians, the mainstream media, entertainers, billionaire globalists both here and abroad, anti-gun advocacy organizations, myriad leftist groups, academicians, and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the nation of it.

It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, now holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, would introduce a flurry of anti-gun bills in the new Congress. The most ambitious so far concerns a ban on semi-automatic firearms they refer to as “assault weapons.”

Feinstein assault weapon ban rifle AK

courtesy AP and Reed Saxon

But this push to ban an entire category of semi-automatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed. The House introduced similar bills that year. They failed, .

However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms’ ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute. The law expired in 2004 and the House tried again, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semi-automatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007.

After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts again in 2012 after Sandy Hook, but their effort were once again defeated.

feinstein assault weapons ban

courtesy M.Scott Mahaskey and politico.com

Not surprisingly, Senator Diane Feinstein is the principal sponsor of this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed as an attack on semi-automatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein.

courtesy conservativereview.com and Getty

According to her press release, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”

A nation-wide ban on some semi-automatic firearms imperils all semi-automatic weapons. Anti-gun zealots desire nothing less than an end to civilian firearms ownership in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.

New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:

“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”

Retired Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.

Americans should take remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. Attorney Christopher Keleher, in an academic article titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” published just months before the Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.

“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”

Americans should not brush aside these remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the right to keep and bear arms. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable.

They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on the utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders rejected. Anti-gun politicians find the mere thought of civilian-owned firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.

These politicians also consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. They believe that we should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order other countries subscribe to.

The mainstream media conveys the message of the anti-gun zealots incessantly. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society, you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global liberal democratic order. This requires you to forsake the archaic desire to own and possess firearms.

 

Roger J. Katz has practiced law for the federal government in Washington D.C., for the state government in Arizona, and has been in private practice in Ohio, New York, and Arizona. Roger is a co-founder of Arbalest Group LLC, creator of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, dedicated to strengthening the Second Amendment, preserving our Bill of Rights, and maintaining a free republic

This article was originally published at arbalestquarrel.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Strength & Honor says:

    I’d love to say “from my cold, dead hands” but after my last fishing trip when we hit a storm I lost all mine… it was tragic.

    1. avatar JEFF BAILEY says:

      Wow you too?

      1. avatar JEFF BAILEY says:

        It was terrible storm nearly drowned.

        1. avatar Ross says:

          Losing one’s Firearms in an unfortunate boating accident ensures that one can no longer use the Firearms for the rest of their life … this is not the approach that I will personally take if and when this style of ban goes through.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Would you Still be able to use them if they are banned? No. So hide them and wait for what comes next.
          Or turn them in and be left empty handed.

        3. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

          Sure sounds like the storm that got mine………..what a shame!

        4. avatar LazrBeam says:

          It’s amazing how many lakes and rivers that storm impacted. Truly tragic.

    2. avatar Scott Evans says:

      What a coincidence. Same here!

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        That last paragraph says it all.

    3. avatar possum says:

      Or burn your house down without a fireproof gunsafe( don’t think it would have helped) and the guns are still there in the ashes, they been heat treated to a nice fire burnt blue color. It could even shoot around corners just by hand bending the barrels…. I always look on the bright side

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        Possum, if no one got hurt, you made out a lot better than too many people.

        Yeah, house fires *suck*. Been there, got the shirt. But everyone survived mine (including the cat), so that was a win in my book…

        1. avatar possum says:

          Howd yah know I was depressed? LOL The bad part is it burnt up the schematics of my Neutrino Fusion Bomb that I was going to destroy the universe with. ( Gawd the FBI’s gotta think “Wow” between this nut and joeR We’re going to need a bigger army)

        2. avatar M1Lou says:

          JoeR must be on meds now because he hasn’t been around for quite a while.

        3. avatar SouthAl says:

          Noticed him over on Ammoland recently.

    4. avatar Broke_It says:

      One of these days I’m gonna pool up some beers and bbq and throw all those poor drowned guns a tasteful funeral. My go to is telling my anti relatives I sold all my shit right before mandatory background checks were instituted in WA state. The look on my aunts face thinking about all those guns going to the highest bidder sans background check is priceless.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        If you’d thrown in that a few where some shifty-looking fellas with shaved heads that would have really made her brain explode

    5. avatar Chris says:

      Were they fully semi automatic or just regular semi automatic?

    6. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      i lost my hands too. the hospital said they could reattach them but like i told the doctors, “i couldn’t pick ’em up.”
      do you have a helper monkey to clean your guns now?

  2. avatar Freebird says:

    From The Federalist . com a few days ago , same crowd working the long game , as NRA plays along , compromising , writing bad laws ,and fundraising.

    in 1988, a former NCBH staffer formed his own group, calling it the New Right Watch, to indicate that he was watching the “right-wingers” who had been responsible for President Ronald Reagan’s 49-state victory in 1984. He had also worked for Amnesty International, which has long been involved in international civilian disarmament efforts at the United Nations.

    If You Can’t Ban Handguns, How About Rifles?

    Immediately after setting up shop, the New Right Watch proposed that disarmament activists give up on handguns for the moment and switch to a new issue. It said: Assault weapons [will] strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons: It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate. . . . Handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.” (Emphasis in the original.)Democrats’ all-out war to ban semi-automatic rifles, calling them “assault weapons” to make them sound scary, began the following year and has since been promoted by even more fake news than has been thrown at President Trump.

    1. avatar JohnD says:

      For the record, there has been *NO* fake news thrown at the President.

      The only reason that “Assault Rifles” are not currently still banned is that Clinton was forced to give that up during his impeachment investigation and trial to Gingrich in the hopes of keeping his Presidency.

      Honestly, I think we need a better PR campaign in order to more positively affect the narrative during times of tragedy. Perhaps allowing single-payer so that Mental Health can be addressed would, at least in my opinion, lower the number of tragic shootings that cause the Left to scream, “Take ’em all!”

      National Gun Registries? No! But maybe a National competency standards so that we all have a consistent level of safety and ability if we’re going to own a firearm. To drive a car we have to prove we can drive. We should at least have to prove we can safely handle a weapon before owning one.

      Now, to our Politicians, if they want to make the Laws regulating guns and gun ownership, they should also have some level competence and/or knowledge of guns to the extent that they are trying to take or regulate them. Gun laws are simply ridiculous and often knee-jerk and pander to the whims of mostly the uniformed – I know, I live in California. We need to at least recognize we can do better *AND* still have the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        “The only reason that “Assault Rifles” are not currently still banned is that Clinton was forced to give that up during his impeachment investigation and trial to Gingrich in the hopes of keeping his Presidency” I don’t know who sold you that line of BS but it has no connection with the reason the law had a sunset provision. Clinton was never in any real trouble of being convicted by the Senate, he knew it, Bob Dole and the rest knew it, too

        Today, the “assault rifle” at the center of the controversy is the most popular sporting rifle in the US. It will not be banned or further regulated in its present state other than a few more states trying to pass a minimum age limit. Too late. It makes for good fundraising jive, it will be impossible to put itno place.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        If we were dealing with reasonable people, maybe some of what you want would be possible.

        Problem is, we’re dealing with zealots who flat-out hate the thought that ordinary Americans own guns.

        Any legislation they’re involved with will inevitably pave the way for more infringement. They’re not interested in safety or freedom. Their sole aim is to restrict the right to keep and bear arms until it’s dead. And if they have to kill or jail you or me along the way, then good riddance.

        To the “progressive” left, we’re not even people. We’re just obstacles. Collateral damage. Broken eggs in their utopian omelet. There’s no way to compromise with people who value their own ideology more than they value human life.

      3. avatar possum says:

        No on competency test . Do you realize how easy it would be to deny someone of a Right with that one. Mable Louise talks to her thrity seven cats, no guns for her. Hulk Manly collects butterflies and tip toes through the tulips. Competency to me, is setting a standard for norms, not good.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I think he meant “proficiency,” as opposed to mental competency. But lets look at the stats: approximately 500 people a year die in firearms accidents. although I do not know the exact number, I suspect the majority involve children getting their hands on loaded and unsecured firearms, a tragedy that is eliminated with a bit of common sense, no training necessary. There are about 2500 accidental shootings a year, many of which are “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” variety. California seeks to reduce these figures through the requirement of a “firearms safety certificate,” a est that almost anyone with more than two brain cells can pass, but at least covers the basics of loading and unloading firearms , plus the “four rules.” In the end, though, you can’t fix stupid.

      4. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

        Competency for driving yeah…that’s not a right. You are infringing on ownership, which is a right…

        1. avatar possum says:

          Humans were not born with the instinct to drive cars, But your implicatingit’s up to the Gov.to give me the Right to have the instinct for survival?

        2. avatar arc says:

          Once upon a time we had this thing called right to travel, be it by foot or by horse, and should also extend today as by vehicle. Unfortunately, no one thought to incorporate this into any standing document like all of our other common sense rights. The people of the united states rolled over like limp noodles when the gubber wanted to restrict what was a perfectly lawful activity.

          Now, we have another form of control and leverage the tyrants can use against us. Any number of failure to do X or pay Y can result in revocation of your permission slip to travel.

      5. avatar Gadsden says:

        Any kind of socialized or single payer health care in the United States is a fantasy. I know, I know, “but but but Europe.” Europe enjoys a unique position in the work where it has stable modern economies *and doesn’t have to pay for a huge military to defend it* because the US has become Europe’s protectorate. The European militaries are infantismly weak and small for their retrospective status. They *need* the US presence in Europe to keep them from being pushed around by Russia, Turkey, and a future China that will have global projection abilities. Meanwhile the United States is a massive multicultural empire with a global standing military. That military is extremely expensive, and is not going to go away anytime soon. Even the most anti war democrat these days supports the international liberal order and the US military’s position in it. So, until America retreats back into military isolationism, no major socialized healthcare will happen.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          The USA would have plenty of money for universal single payer healthcare if we pulled some of our troops out of the 150 countries we currently are occupying. As a general Smedley Butler said war is a racket and our military is functioning as free security guards for multinational corporations around the world and it must stop or we will be bankrupt in a decade or two.

          “The United States has active duty military troops stationed in nearly 150 countries. The table below details how many troops are in each country as of September 30, 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.”

        2. avatar Gadsden says:

          If only it were that easy. We couldn’t just pull *some* troops back, we’d have to pretty much pull them *all* back, from all corners of the globe, and focus on regional defense. Thats the only way to really cut a large amount of military spending and not get sucked into foreign wars. That’s *not* going to happen, Republican or Democrat. Not only would we have to pull them back, but the second the next holocaust starts somewhere, we’d have to ignore it. If Russia invaded Europe, again we’d have to ignore it. When China invades Taiwan and Japan, again, wed have to ignore it. Neither party is going to go down that road, probably ever. I honestly don’t see any possible scenario where the US global hegemony ends. Even the most libertarian, isolationist person in politics today, Rand Paul, would commit to a major foreign war when those things happen after a hypothetical American pull back.

        3. avatar YellowMyDevil says:

          The majority of the Federal budget is spent on non discretionary spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs. Military, which is actually one of the few functions as outlined in the Constitution and is considered discretionary, does not even come close.

        4. avatar Chris says:

          The USA would have plenty of money for universal single payer healthcare if we pulled some of our troops out of the 150 countries we currently are occupying.

          WTF? Data and the numbers says no way not by a longshot. and basing troops in the US often costs just about the same as basing them overseas. Basing 100 troops in NATO member Bulgaria costs no more than basing them in the US.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chris, the fact is overseas deployment costs much more than US bases. Here’s an excerpt from a rand corporation study, it clearly states overseas deployment is much more expensive, not to mention strategic and operational risk to the troops involved plus a political cost by basing armed Americans in other peoples, countries.

          “Despite substantial host-nation financial and in-kind support, we found that sta- tioning forces and maintaining bases overseas does entail measurably higher direct financial costs to DoD. Host-nation support—substantial from Japan and South Korea (in terms of both in-kind support and cash payments) and from NATO allies (mostly through indirect in-kind support)—offsets some, but not all, of the higher costs of overseas basing, as well as the higher costs of having a more distributed basing structure. If the U.S. overseas posture were to shift toward less-developed areas of the world where resources are less plentiful, U.S. contributions could increase and those of host nations could decline, although the lower cost of living in some such areas could have a countervailing effect.”

      6. avatar Jay in Florida ducking crappy drivers all day. says:

        You have to prove you can drive???? When you were 16 maybe.
        Now tell that to the millions of ancient decrepit old folks here in Florida who CANT drive worth a damm.
        They should have to have a retest every so and so years to renew their drivers license.
        Age Discrimination they all will scream.
        That’s for a privilege NOT a right.
        Now with a gun any gun. How do you show competency??
        Pull a trigger?? Pull back a slide.
        Take a 5 round test from 5 feet???
        Other then passing some 4 hour BS class. I don’t see any way to prove competency in 50 states all having the same test. As it is now 50 different ways. Some have none.

      7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        So, voter competency tests worked out so well, you want to do that for firearms?

        1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

          I’m trying to work out “Jim Crow” as an anagram for “JonhD”, and it just won’t go.

          Little help? Anybody?

      8. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        “We won’t keep a record of you taking that competency test. Honest.”

        “We just need a record so we can have you re-test; you know, stay current. (For the children.) Oh, that? That’s just a processing fee.”

        “Well, from your chart it says you likely have guns in the house, so I just have a few questions before I can renew your prescription…”

        “About booking that flight…”

      9. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        “Do better” … here’s a thought, or three:

        There’s lots of violence, lots not using guns. How about we go after violence?

        How about we go after known wolves like Fla School Shooter, or Mr Shoot Up a Gay Dance Club? Vs, say the couple hundred million guns, tens of millions of gun owners, or .5 to 2.5 million times people protect themselves using guns, each year?

        How about we get help to people throwing red flags? They rarely actually shoot stuff, but they’re always in trouble. Confiscating any gun in a 3 mile radious doesn’t really address that, does it?

        How about we do better n go after tha actual problems? It ain’t the guns or we’d all be dead. It ain’t the gun owners or the anti-people would be dead. It ain’t people in distress or everybody around them would be dead.

      10. avatar Chris says:

        For the record, there has been *NO* fake news thrown at the President.

        Wrong. The data clearly show the president has been subject to an unending fake news assault. How many disclosures of editors at the New York times, Senior Google news managers do you need to read where they they themselves state there is a massive press attack on the president do you need?

        In just equal decisions, actions to his predecessors he has been characterized by the major press outlets negatively at a rate of 6:1.

        He has been blamed for example for the shutdown where major press blamed Congress under Clinton and Obama. When a Democrat president BROKE all the records for “longest shutdown” the term was used against that Democrat president at 1/14th the rate. You do realize before this shutdown “broke all the records” another one had, right?

        The only reason that “Assault Rifles” are not currently still banned is that Clinton was forced to give that up during his impeachment investigation and trial to Gingrich in the hopes of keeping his Presidency.

        That claim comes right out the Bloomberg spin machine and has been DEBUNKED over and over. thanks to the NRA Clinton did NOT have the votes for a non grandfathered nor non sunsetted assault rifle ban EVER, not even close. It would have caused 40% of the DEMOCRATS in Congress to not support it.
        90% of the support vote was Democrat legislators and they all were going to vote against impeachment anyway
        do you even know the house and senate votes on that? I seriously doubt you do since you are just spewing the gun grabbers spin.

        Honestly, I think we need a better PR campaign in order to more positively affect the narrative during times of tragedy. Perhaps allowing single-payer so that Mental Health can be addressed would, at least in my opinion, lower the number of tragic shootings that cause the Left to scream, “Take ’em all!”

        wrong — In case after case the has been shown the public money was there for that. The issue has been ACLU driven laws that make the US the hardest place on earth to remand of mandatory mental health check and treatment for the individual who did the shooting. They cant even find a case where the money was not there.

        -Cho (largest school shooting ever) was FULLY covered under his schools health plan. Refused treatment.
        – James Holmes (clorado theater shooting) was under treatment, and left wing counselor did not tell authorities he had very dangerous conditions.
        – Cruz (parkland/stoneman high school shooter) was fully covered under his foster care system state’s medicaid.
        – Stephen Paddock (las vegas) had full gold level health insurance
        – Omar Saddiqui Mateen (pulse nightclub) had full health insurance including mental health coverage in his job where he was employed right up to his death.
        – Columbine shooters, both fully covered and in fact under treatment.
        – Sandy Hook, shooter had full heath insurance paid for by his father, was refusing treatment since turning 18 (thanks again to the ACLU)

        So stop the bullsht

        But maybe a National competency standards so that we all have a consistent level of safety and ability if we’re going to own a firearm. To drive a car we have to prove we can drive. We should at least have to prove we can safely handle a weapon before owning one.

        Your suggestion that ecercise of hte First, Foriuth, fifht and Sixth ammdnet shoudl require a compentacy test means what?

        And your analogy is WRONG. One do NOT need a licence to own a car, to change it in any qay possible, icnldyuing making it cabalbe of going 300 mph and driving it on private proieprty you or anyone who give you permission to drive. YUou need a licence one for hte analogy to concealed CARRY.

        Your posts (this one and others) are a litany of falsehoods

      11. avatar LazrBeam says:

        Driving a car is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege. The only way they are related is that some wing nuts use motor vehicles instead of firearms to commit acts of terror. Try again.

      12. avatar zerofoo says:

        “We need to at least recognize we can do better”

        Do better what?

        Rifles (all – not just semi auto) are only involved in about 350 deaths per year.

        Meanwhile opioids kill almost 80,000 people per year yet most who claim to care about that don’t acknowledge that most heroin comes across our unprotected southern border.

        We can not do better until people stop thinking emotionally and start thinking analytically. People killing themselves is not a gun issue. Drug dealers, pimps and gang members killing each other is not a gun issue. Mentally disturbed kids on SSRIs shooting up a school is not a gun issue.

        Until the left in this country puts blame where it belongs – we will NEVER be able to do better.

        But for that to happen, the left will need to admit it is wrong.

        Pigs will fly before that happens.

    2. avatar Chris says:

      I was agreeing until this:

      “the NRA plays along , compromising , writing bad laws ,and fundraising.”

      NRA has to fundraise they are outspent more than 10:1. And they are not compromising but diverting which is strategically sound.

      Give a citation for a bad law “written” by them? I worked in a state legislature for several years a few decades ago and as an NRA member follow what the NRA does and how they do it. What they have done consistently s when their is an avalanche of public support for gun control is play along a bit and neuter the legislation. Was forcing a sunset and no confiscation on an assault rifle ban in the 1990’s that would have passed a mistake? No.

      Have you seen the current data on trends on public support for assault rifle ban with possession ban (confiscation)? It is 49/49, and unlike in the past where support for a gun control measure spikes after an event and then drops, this has been rising for quite some time after parkland and las Vegas.

      Clarence Thomas has health and weight issues. There is a higher chance a Democrat president with a Decmorat Senator will be replacing him than that Ginsburg will die in the next 21 months.

      Do you know what A dem house, senate, whitehouse and the shift of a single vote to democrats on Scotus means? Reversal of Heller. Embolden of half a dozen state legislatures with Dem majorities to shift their states from shall to may, making “may issue” the test for a majority of the population. A permanent national assault rifle ban with no grandfather and no sunset. 100% ammo tax or more, maybe to pay for unending najor funding of CDC to roll out studies in support of gun contorl, that can be used in federal court cases. 10 round or less national magazine capacity with no grandfathering. national red flag. etc etc

  3. avatar MyName says:

    The degree to which politicians fail to understand the word, No”, never ceases to amaze me.

    “Give up your guns”

    NO

    “Give up some of your guns”

    NO

    “Give up your magazines, bump stocks, barrel shrouds, etc.”

    NO

    You would think they could figure out the meaning of the the answer to their proposals before they make them.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Er… except they pass laws anyway that throw you in prison for years and confiscate said guns when you say no.

      So you end up either saying it very quietly or end up being the next Ruby Ridge. Neither is a stunning victory.

  4. avatar Kevin says:

    Mr. Katz says, in the third paragraph, “One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn’t be unnecessary.”

    I don’t believe that’s accurate.

    I looked in the original text (at http://arbalestquarrel.com/semiautomatic-weapons-under-fire/#post_content). There, it says, “…would be unnecessary.”

    That’s better!

    Not trying to be nit-picky, just making sure the author’s position is accurately stated.

    Great article, thanks!

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      great research, thanks!
      what if it had said, “…wouldn’t not be unnecessary.”

  5. avatar Bob Jones says:

    You California gun owners should have voted Feinnstein out….DeLeon the Clown would not have her level of respectability.

  6. avatar RMS1911 says:

    John Paul Stevens is a subversive asshat who clearly doesn’t understand the Constitution
    Or else he would understand his position is in opposition to the Constitution and the founders.
    But libturds are too stupid to pour water out of a boot when the instructions are on the heel.

    1. avatar JohnD says:

      See, an ad hominem attack just demonstrates that we are not willing to engage in a mature discussion about this. He does make a point, however, our society has chosen otherwise. We choose to own guns and to define the Second Amendment in present-day terms of the individual’s right to ownership.

      Simply calling him an asshat for a valid legal interpretation only polarizes the discussion.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Stevens’ opinion on the Second Amendment flies in the face of history, common sense, the consensus of the rest of the Supreme Court, and the plain meaning of the English language.

        If he’s not an idiot (i.e., an asshat), then he’s a seditious piece of $%^& who would turn the very constitution he pledged to protect into a dead letter. Mature reasoning and decorum will get you nowhere if you’re dealing with traitors and morons.

      2. avatar Gadsden says:

        “Second Amendment in present-day terms of the individual’s right to ownership“

        That’s not true. The individual right to gun ownership is the *original* intent. Read what the founders had to say on the subject in other texts. It’s blanantly clear the RKBA has always been an individual right like the rest of the first 9 amendments in the bill of rights.

      3. avatar Bob says:

        I wouldn’t call him an asshat, but I would change “valid legal interpretation” to “improper legal interpretation”…

      4. avatar dph says:

        Dear JOHND, Pray tell, how do you have a mature discussion with people who say you’re right as long as what you believe is what they believe. At this point compromise is for losers and pussies. In case you haven’t noticed the anti view of compromise is you give , they take and make no mistake they want to take it all. I used to beleve there would be second Civil War at some point maybe 50 years from now, now I fear it may happen in the next decade. Keep your powder dry. Oh, by the way, former Justice Stevens can kiss my ass.

      5. avatar RMS1911 says:

        There in no “interpretation” the 2nd amendment is direct and quite clear and the law of the land since 1791.
        Only asshat mouth breathers think the Constitution needs to be interpreted.
        p.s.
        In case you were wondering it is written in English.

        1. avatar The Grey Man says:

          The people that think the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation are the same people that think the 10 Commandments are really just the 10 Suggestions…

      6. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Interesting how incivility n ad homenim were never problems til The Wrong People got down in that mud too … and started winning.

        “Deplorables?” “Bitterly clinging…” “There are those…”

        B T W calling someone an “asshat” using lots of big words is still calling them an “asshat”, just dishonest about doing it, besides.

        Here’s the self defense position: “We’ll stop when you stop.” B T W, you can tell who’s the aggressors vs. defenders. The defenders stop when the other guys stop. The aggressors keep going. Applies with guns, and words.

        Nationally, the “pro-gun” people did nada about national carry, etc. while they held majorities. The new congress is in a week n there’s DiFi going “No guns for you!” Who’s the aggressors? I do wonder, was she sitting on a letter until the time was right? Or is noting that uncivil?

      7. avatar Chris says:

        Simply calling him an asshat for a valid legal interpretation only polarizes the discussion.

        Steven’s own statements show his interpretation as purely political not based on the law. his interpretation could be applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments and totally shred them in terms of protecting the rights of the individual.

  7. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    it’s time to write a new declaration of independence, one from the government, that states we’re no longer accepting her authority to regulate firearms.

    sign it, nail it up on the door of congress and let the revolution begin.

    I’m tired of this shit

  8. avatar James J. White says:

    How do democrats get away with banning firearms because of “style”? How could “military style” semi-automatic firearms be more lethal than any other semi-automatic style that fires the same round with the same magazine capacity? The short answer is that the sissies have gotten control of the democrat party and they hate the Military.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “How could “military style” semi-automatic firearms be more lethal than any other semi-automatic style that fires the same round with the same magazine capacity?”

      I have seen and heard this discussed by some of the smart folks in the anti-gun movement. Ones who actually understand how guns work.

      Their logic is essentially to change the rules of the game midstream after securing a “win”.

      From what I’ve seen they reason that if they can ban semi-auto rifles of certain “styles” based on the “assault weapons” argument that these rifles are “too dangerous” they can then morph that argument into a technical discussion of how that rifle functions and extend that to all semi-auto rifles. Because all semi-auto rifles essentially work the same way once a sub-set of them is banned due to “danger” the rest can be then be banned when the argument changes from aesthetics making the gun too dangerous to how base function makes it too dangerous.

      For example, they know that a Mini14 Ranch Rifle basically works the same way as an AR (yes, the bolt works differently, that’s immaterial to them, the feature of automatically loading the next round using the return of the bolt is the key here). So the ban the AR on grounds that it’s too dangerous because of a pistol grip, detachable mag, bayonet lug, flash hider etc and then turn around and say that because a Mini-14 is effectively just as dangerous due to essentially functioning the same way they can ban that too. Then that logic can be extended, due to the general way the action works, to things like the Benneli R1 and the Remington .750.

      Then they can go after pistols because while they’re smaller the action is still “essentially the same and that’s what makes these things so dangerous”. I’ve also seen it argued that this could be extended to DA revolvers.

      This can all be morphed again with that standard most of us have probably heard which is that they’d like to ban anything that is based on a design that is substantially the same as “a weapon designed for war” which arguably covers almost everything other than single shot shotguns, derringers and a few other designs.

      I don’t know how widespread such a thought process is but it’s certainly out there.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        I’d wager that among the thinking minority — not the drones, but the people who are actually driving strategy and writing policy — that line of thought is universal.

        In WA, they already took that step. ALL semiautomatic rifles are treated like “assault weapons” now.

        And more prohibitions are in the works. If they don’t pass the legislature (which they probably won’t), they’ll show up again as ballot initiatives, and the Progressive Billionaires’ Club will grease the skids for them the same way they did the last one.

    2. avatar ollie says:

      Senator Metzenbaum was the ignorant cretin who put the bolt action Enfield “Jungle Carbine” on the “Assault Rifle” list because it looked skeery as hell. The smurffs want a nambee pambee world.

  9. avatar Gene Frick says:

    I turned all mine in at the last gun buy back, got a two hundred dollar gift certificate to wallyworld what a deal Democrats really do suck

    1. avatar JohnD says:

      Why do they suck if you’re the one turning your guns in? Did you have to?

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Sorry- you’re kind of like the genius freak on Big Bang Theory who doesn’t understand sarcasm… Seems pretty obvious to me.

        1. avatar Gene says:

          Thanks Craig , I thought it was pretty obvious too

        2. avatar CZ Rider says:

          He reminds me of that scene you get in most WW2 or Vietnam movies where the new replacement shows up all bright-eyed and starts talking about regulations or idealist philosophy or something while all the vets roll their eyes at the latest dumb kid showing up and thinking they’re on to something new.

      2. avatar Chris says:

        Lol you didn’t even get the joke.

        BTW Australia had a mass confiscation and celebrate their murder rate dropping 41% over the next 20 years.
        US increased both number of guns, gun owners and ratio of semi auto to old style and the US had a 60% drop in homicide over the same period!

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Brett Stephens spent 16 years at the WSJ pretending to honor all conservatives hold dear until the 2016 election flushed him out. He left in 2017 to join the NYT and come out if his cocoon as a leftist.
    I don’t give 2 shits what he or anyone else calls for. The 2nd is here to stay and they need to deal with it.

  11. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    There is a fundamental disagreement between how we view our inherent rights versus how Feinstein, Bloomberg, et al view them. We believe we hold our rights individually, they believe we only have the “rights” bestowed upon us by the government. We see ourselves as individuals and they see everyone as part of a collective. They see themselves not as our representatives but as our rulers. Those positions can’t be reconciled. Ultimately, our government depends on the consent of the governed. Their laws are only legitimate to the extent we citizens submit and comply with them and I don’t think large numbers of the over 150 million gun owners, holding over 300 million firearms and billions of rounds of ammo will comply. That’s an existential problem for them. Ultimately, the only way Feinstein and her gang will get people to comply is to use raw force.

    Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “…the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”

  12. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

    “The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia.”

    Not *quite* accurate.

    The court held that the right exists inside the home.

    The outside the home, we have to work on.

    In the NY pistol club SCOTUS case, it was re-listed for conference *again* :

    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

    That’s better than being outright denied cert., I suppose…

  13. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Confiscation would literally be the end of the democratic party. Literally…the end of it…

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Seriously, a real attempt at confiscation would likely be the end of both parties. It would be a short-lived attempt at best, not so much because of the uptick in violence by firearms owners- more likely the unwillingness of finding enough “recruits” to do the actual confiscation. I deal with many LE personnel who would not do it, even if under “orders”. I don’t believe the military grunts will do so, either, especially when they understand that at some point they’ll be leaving the military and want to carry on as usual in civilian life. The old meme used to be the US gov’t contracting out the service to either the UN or NATO. I don’t think that’s even a far option any longer, either.

      This is a repeat of the same crap we all went through in the 1970s/ 80s and culminated in 1993. Some of the players are the same, some are new, but the game’s the same and in 2019 there are infinitely more of these firearms and accessories in the hands of regular Americans than during that period. The best bet is to let the cretins spout their drivel and make certain everyone hears it and understands their ploys. Don’t argue with them or try to explain- let them dig their own hole. Their words and proposed actions are neither in the American spirit nor are they mainstream. And in the mean time. live your lives and shoot in a responsible manner that doesn’t make you and the rest of us appear to be a bunch of Neanderthal morons who need to be corralled and controlled. It really isn’t all that hard- you just need to think before you open your mouth or your keyboard. And a shave, haircut and shower wouldn’t hurt for some of us as well.

      Vigillance, yes, but with intelligence as well.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        yes…but are they listening?

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      If you mean going door by door, sure. But that has never been how it has happened- at least not at first. They may be ignorant of many things and stupid in many ways, but not all. They have a game plan for disarmament that has been and will continue to be played for decades.
      – Make some guns\accessories\ammo “evil”. Language is important here. “Assault weapon.”
      – Ban evil things
      – Let laws remain in force and enforce on ad hoc basis against individuals
      – Extend enforcement as law becomes the norm
      – Make more guns\accessories\ammo “evil”
      – Pass more laws
      – Repeat

      At some point they might get around to confiscation rather than selective enforcement (California is probably the closest to this having gone through this cycle many times) but that would wait until they’ve sufficiently brainwashed most of the public that the laws are ‘reasonable’ and therefore those who defy them are gun-toting cousin-marrying hicks, not the guy down the street. The frog heating up works because most people have other things to worry about. We even see it here when people bring up immigration, abortion, etc. The dems will not support guns and the republicans don’t really care. Not sure how the frog leaves the pot in this case. For all the bluster of liberty trees and blood, I don’t think it will happen.

  14. avatar Matt says:

    I wonder if they would go house to house to take our guns. Throw millions of innocent people in jail? Really?

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The jails will overflow quickly so extra facilities will have to be created. And these extra facilities will quickly exceed capacity causing sanitation issues which through shortages of resources and bureaucratic neglect will result in disease outbreaks. With more prisoners arriving there will be calls to reduce the population as the death toll from from disease will not be adequate to accommodate the new arrivals. So more active measures will be taken.

    2. avatar Okie says:

      They need our tax dollars too bad for that.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      I’d say no chance they go house-to-house.

      First, they would need a list of gun owners. Just going down the street searching every house on the off-chance of finding guns is enough to piss off even a liberal, especially when the liberal gets a knock on the door.

      Second, I don’t think local law enforcement will go along with it. Many of them are citizen gun-owners. I suspect all of them do not want to get caught up in the next Ruby Ridge.

      Third, without local law enforcement, it can’t be done. There are not enough federal law enforcement agents or military personnel to do a national house-by-house search of 100 million gun owners. In the absence of a list, make that every house in the USA.

      Not gonna happen.

      1. avatar Herb Allen says:

        Door to door has already happened. Katrina 2005.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      “red flags” are a good start….they begin with the threatening, defiant types…..

  15. avatar Bob says:

    This is an *asterisk* – * … this is a “quotation” mark – ” … use them appropriately…

    1. avatar CZ Rider says:

      Quotation marks are used for quotes and for sarcasm. Asterisks are commonly used for emphasis in informal situations where you can’t bold or italicize text. He was drawing emphasis to a particular word, so the asterisk thing makes more sense than quotation marks would. Point that grammar cannon at someone else, hoss.

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      bob, you and geoffpr are just going to have to come to terms. you don’t want the horns.
      now, i don’t know what ~these~ are called- toupes?- but, ~bob~, if that is your real name, let’s not force me to quote the title to detective harris’ book.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      spare me your self-anointed righteousness….

  16. avatar Woodrow Call says:

    I’m responsible for investigating boating incidents in my area as part of my LE scope of duties. The sheer number of boating incidents resulting in lost firearms recently is staggering.

  17. avatar Rocketman says:

    The day is coming and soon when the various states are going to have to split apart and form new countries, either that or we’re going to have a second civil war that will make the first one look like a minor PTA parents squabble.

    1. avatar CZ Rider says:

      I think we could get by if we transferred a lot of the power the federal government has accumulated back to the state level. The feds should deal primarily with defense and other national/international entities, and the states should be largely free to handle their own internal affairs. That could allow for peaceful separation via voting with one’s feet while still letting us all come together in the event of a real national emergency.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      the precedent was set with West Virginia….so it can be done….

  18. avatar possum says:

    My father WW2 vet, simple farmer, his focus was on dirt, told me this” Possum the Nazi’s will never try to take this country because the people have to many guns.”.. wonder what he would think of the crap going on now…. Hmmmmm, well I think I hear ” Time tah git rid ah thet bunch, they ain’t doing us no good.”

  19. avatar The Grey Man says:

    The people that think the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation are the same people that think the 10 Commandments are really just the 10 Suggestions…

  20. avatar James W Crawford says:

    Anyone wanting to speak with authority to rebut the bovine scatology about criminals favoring”assault rifles” should Google “FBI UCR” for links to general information on the types of firearms used to commit homicides. The number and percentage of murders committed with rifles of any type has been plummeting for decades. To rebut the BS about the police being outgunned by criminals armed with “assault rifles” Google “FBI LEOKA” for some caliber specific information on weapons used to kill police officers.

    If you are really serious about research, phone the FBI Uniform Crime Reports office at (304)-625-3535 and ask to speak with Lauretta. Ask for a copy of the spreadsheet that lists detailed information on virtually every homicide of a police officer that has occurred in the last half century. The spreadsheet includes the type, caliber, manufacturer and model of firearm used. If she is uncertain what you want, just tell her that you want the same files that she sent to that evil Crawford bastard.

    For even more fun, ask Lauretta to send you the Supplementary Homicide Reports for your state. It can be extremely useful to rebut big city politicians, police and doctors who are yammering about “assault rifles” by pointing out the dearth of homicides committed with rifles of any type in their jurisdiction. You can also use the SHRs to humiliate anti gun police chiefs by pointing out how many murders in their jurisdictions remain unsolved. The police chiefs who scream loudest about gun control should be arrested for loitering.

  21. avatar drunkEODguy says:

    Brian Mast, in the unlikely event you or your staff read this please know; You are a massive letdown to the EOD community. I hope you get voted out so you will stop putting our community in a bad light. Everyone was excited when you managed to get a seat in the HOR, but you’ve really cocked that up and we would all like you to get a new job.

    – sincerely, all techs everywhere

  22. avatar Nanashi says:

    The NRA giving up full auto sure deterred the gun grabbers…

    1. avatar Chris says:

      are you talking about 80 years ago? What a nonsense post.
      The NRA has run circles around the gun control nuts for 40 years despite having 1/10 the money.

      Why do you think support for the NRA among gun owners has ben rising for 20 years and is at the highest level ever?

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        desperation?….

        1. avatar Diogenes says:

          Why woud it be desperation?
          People reconginzie the left wants to simply ban legal gun ownership leaving the criminals armed and absent a citizenry that can in part protect themslves, more calls for more government control on all aspects of life.

          Most people know that. So even agreeing or disagreeing with some tactics or positons of the NRA as too soft or too hardline, combined with the fact that the NRA has been very successful at reducing, blocking, and sometimes reversing a lot of these unconstutional laws, is why support for the NRA is strong.

  23. avatar Alan says:

    Regarding the ongoing fuss and furor over Semiautomatic Rifles all the rage in some quarters, is it really possible that the people and groups pushing this foolishness, that seek to ban them, are unaware of the fact that semiautomatic rifles have been commercially offered in this country since 1907/1908. Might it be that they hoping to convince the public that semiautomatic rifles are some lately arrived devils device? I wonder. While originally, semiautomatic rifles came with nice looking walnut stocks, some still do, they fired one shot at a time, exactly as do current semiautomatic rifles. Oh by the way, semiautomatic shotguns, the Browning A-5 being the first, correct me if I’m in error here, appeared in the early 1920’s.The semiautomatic rifles produced by Remington and Winchester came in various calibers and magazine capacities, some were even, in today’s parlance “Hi-Cap”, hide the women and children. Anyhow, push coming to shove, it seems that nothing much is really “new”, except perhaps for the Smoke and Mirrors Games played by the Anti Gun, Anti Constitutional, Anti Civil Rights
    Mob. Attacking the rights and lawful activities of those who live and operate within the law accomplishes no desirable or worthwhile ends, something that The Antis might one day soon recognize and acknowledge. Stranger things have happened.

  24. avatar 22winmag says:

    Wood and metal relics from the 18th century still work and can drop a man at great distances.

    Parchment paper relics from the 18th century still work and greased the wheels for the American people to acquire hundreds of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition.

    Soap Box (on life support) Ballot Box (it’s actually what got us into this mess we are today- thanks a lot voters) Jury Box (seriously compromised) Ammo Box (at the ready.)

  25. avatar DD says:

    To the guy from California who wants single payer mental heath to fix this: why don’t you blame the liberals in your state which can now use mental health records to size guns, meaning no one with depression, anxiety issues or even other mild transient mental health needs should ever see a phycologist, counselor or health practitioner?

    Or your statement it should be like car licenses? Which? License to own? You don’t need a driver’s license for that, a 15 year old can own a car in my state. Or license to be on public property driving (similar to gun carry). You can get a drivers license if you have been adjudicated insane and you can get a drivers license if you are a three time violent felon. In my state you can get a drivers license if you are an illegal alien. You want all those people to get gun carry licenses?

    By the way Justice Stevens was arguing for a rights rationing approach, and a preemptive approach in limiting bill of rights rights. That does make him an asshat. His claim that we limit the First Amendment and his example of libel was craven. We do not in fact have preemptive limits on the First Amendment he advocates for the Second Amendment. Livel sanctions are: a) civil b) that you committed a clear harm has to be proven in court before you get any sanction c) only the person committing the harm is sanctioned; none of those sanctions are preemptive. They are punishments and redress for harms committed by that person and that person only, after a harm has been committed. This claim that all or core rights are preemptively limited with such examples is a lie and the examples used fallacious and intentionally specious..

  26. avatar Rob the Old says:

    The picture with Grey Davis and Diane Feinstein says it all. He’s looking at her like she might not be responsible for what she says or does. I still had some good feelings about the senator, until the Cavanaugh Hearings. She got us throught the mayor’s assasnation way back when and I thought she was going to be a reasonable Democrat leader. Such a shame to end one’s career looking like…….

  27. avatar Flying Fish says:

    Just picked up some SKSs at bargain basement prices. Glad I did when I did, the seller just doubled his price on the rest. Use the SKSs to guard the ARs and AKs. Fixed 10 round magazine, no pistol grip, wood stock, (ahem, bayonet, ahem), no muzzle device, uses 7.62x39mm ammo, and more accurate that an AK…, no need to wait in your kayak loaded with semiautomatic loaders waiting for that “Perfect Storm.”

  28. avatar Durkabajerka says:

    A few years ago I was talking to a gun shop owner who has been in the industry since he was a kid. He would go to Canada for gun shows, and haul in a pickup truck full of guns INTO Canada. He’s at retirement age now, and he saw a future where 10 rounds would have been considered high capacity, and 3 round magazines were the norm. He’s very glad to see he was wrong in his predictions. As a blue dog democrat (and his business being what it is) he has always been a constitutionalist when it comes to guns. Heck, he has an HK21 and 23 in his collection. He warned that it can all go the way of England with one bad press day.

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