The WaPo has never seen a gun control law it didn’t like . . . After getting an NRA permission slip, the GOP shouldn’t be let off the hook
There is something pathetic about grown men and women who hold federal office waiting to get instructions from the NRA before suggesting that they might be willing to discuss a laughably tiny move to regulate the bump stocks — but of course, not the semiautomatic weapons themselves nor the numbers of weapons one can buy for a personal arsenal. And perish the thought that the NRA might permit lawmakers to consider universal background checks.
The stubborn refusal to enact any meaningful reforms for fear of inconveniencing legal gun owners spurs otherwise sympathetic voices to demand drastic measures. (Bret Stephens decried half-measures, arguing, “Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones.”) When exasperated Americans demand big, bold steps, the NRA screeches that the government wants to take away your guns.
Mr. Ghost Gun himself to challenge DiFi . . . Sources Say California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon to Challenge Sen. Dianne Feinstein in Democratic Primary
California state Senate president Kevin de León intends to enter California’s 2018 Democratic primary against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, three sources with knowledge of his plans say.
De León has begun calling labor leaders and elected officials to inform them of his plans, the sources said, and is expected to soon announce his campaign against Feinstein, a giant of California Democratic politics who has held the office since 1992.
Gee, it’s almost as if gun control laws don’t really work . . . Gun laws that cost millions had little effect because they weren’t enforced
In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.
More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.
Congress has never let facts or precision of language get in its way . . . Two Bad Ideas on Bump Stocks
It’s a bipartisan effort that applies to “any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.” As Christian Britschgi notes at Reason, this is an insanely broad definition: “Binary triggers, which fire[] a round on both the pull and release of the trigger, would also likely be prohibited under this language, as would lighter triggers, and heavier recoil springs, both of which allow for a faster rate of fire.”
They need to reword this. One option they should explore is the concept of “deliberate engagement” (which made the rounds on “Gun Twitter” last week, though the user who came up with the idea seems to have deleted his tweets). The idea would be to regulate devices that help users fire multiple bullets without deliberately engaging the trigger each time.
The monoparty reaches consensus . . . Your Bipartisan Bump Stock Ban Has Arrived
As Reason has pointed out, bump stocks are easy targets for politicians looking to “do something” about gun violence, and it is not surprising that they would be the subject of Curbelo and Moulton’s bill. Some gun enthusiasts and retailers considered them a novelty—little known about until the shooting—and one that detracts from the functionality of a weapon by sacrificing accuracy for the speed of firing.
With the issue of a weapon’s rate of fire on the table, there is every reason to believe lawmakers might consider amendments to add to the ban extended magazines, reloading aids, or anything else that allows a shooter to get rounds off more quickly.
This is the slippery slope uncompromising libertarians and conservatives worried about and liberals hoped Congress would find itself negotiating. And even if it passes unanimously, the bill brings the nation no closer to preventing what happened in Las Vegas.