Well, we all know what’s coming – another of Di Fi’s attempts to resurrect the 1994 AWB, but with more comprehensive and permanent elements this time. Whether she and the rest of her despicable opportunistic ilk are successful in milking the tragedy of dead children will come down to one simple thing: greed. But more on that later. First, let’s look at . . .
How it Can Pass
So, if you are a dedicated anti-gunner, how do you manage to overcome the opposition in the House to a new AWB? Fairly, simple: you do something that’s perceived as relatively innocuous, “reasonable” and has a fair chance of making a “real difference.” What is that exactly? Magazine capacity.
If a bill is introduced that only limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, it probably passes no problem. People who don’t own guns really don’t understand why we are against magazine capacity limitations. They don’t see what the big deal is about asking us to limit our shooting to chunks of 10 rounds and on the flip side, they believe that forcing psycho shooters to cycle through multiple magazines will have a measurable impact on reducing mass killings.
I’m not interested in debating the pros and cons of the issue here. I’ll take it as granted that most of us who visit this site are against any mag cap restrictions. That said, the percentage of the population that owns any gun at all is still slightly less than the percentage that doesn’t, and of those who own guns, the number of folks who really care deeply about magazine capacity limitations is smaller still.
Now, assume mag capacity isn’t enough and you want take this opportunity and grab for more? Well, the next step is to go for a re-visitation of the 1994 AWB. But this time, you strengthen it so that manufacturers can’t simply work around the limitations. I have some ideas as to how this could be done, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to give the opposition any ideas. But even a dim bulb elected official could do a little noodling and come up with a set of guidelines that would be tighter than the Clinton era version.
That approach, though, would likely meet with more opposition than a simple mag capacity limitation would. Whether it passes or not could depend on what the restrictions are on guns already in the market. The smart choice would be to simply grandfather all existing weapons but allow no new ones. There would be no restrictions on transferring (selling) these existing guns other than the standard background check, but private sales would not be legal – you’d have to go through an FFL to transfer.
Of course, the government could go even farther, requiring registration of all existing “assault weapons” much like Massachusetts requires registration of all guns within its borders. That would face even more opposition, but ultimately might pass in the interest of “public safety.”
How it Might Fail
We’re back to greed again. The anti-2A folks have a perfect backdrop against which to play out their security theater of gun restrictions. Thanks to the horror of dead first graders, more people are in the mood for “something to be done” and some sort of new restriction on gun ownership definitely tops that list for a lot of voters. That said, the anti crowd might overplay their hand, prompting enough people to create enough widespread opposition to kill the whole thing.
What provisions would constitute this bridge too far? To start, retroactive restrictions (all high cap mags must be destroyed, all existing guns must be modified to fit the new laws, etc.) will inflame the anger of many. Going further and making existing guns non-transferable hits existing gun owners in the pocket book and would inflame things, too. The simple fact is, we don’t have to convince all that many Congressmen to stop this. A bill could die in committee or, even if it makes it to the floor, enough vocal opposition and amendment additions would be sufficient to water it down or kill it entirely.
As pro-gun people, we probably have to hope that DiFi goes for the most restrictive approach. Sure, its a gamble, but a more “reasonable appearing” AWB has a better chance of passing and enacting new restrictions. Fortunately, like so many on the anti-gun right side, DiFi hates guns in a totally irrational manner. Which means there is a good chance that she’ll get greedy and this bill with go the way of the rest of them.
Most importantly, though, we need to fight this now using the legal methods available to us. Let our congresscrtitters know that we won’t take this lying down and if they abandon us on this, we will abandon them come donation and election time.
Here’s another idea to those whose fingers sometimes get to the keyboard before the thought process is complete: avoid comments about how a new AWB will spark a civil war, people will take up arms or any of that blood in the street nonsense. That only results in people with no existing opinion on guns one way or the other — a significant plurality — coming to the conclusion that “gun people” are every bit as crazy as the anti crowd would have them believe.
Instead, the best place to counter these attempts to limit our constitutional rights is through government and with our friends and acquaintances. Every new person that we bring around to our way of thinking is one more person who will see DiFi and her slimy friends for the opportunistic scum that they are.