H.R 4269, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015″ directly seeks to limit the Second Amendment

Congress has done it before and now, they’re looking to do it again.  This time though, they are at least being honest about their objective; the summary of the bill is, verbatim:

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution states:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate:
infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing:
an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
This new bill’s specifically stated purpose is to ensure that Second Amendment rights are limited, or infringed upon.
Which makes it kind of feel like a practical joke.
However, if Congress takes this bill seriously, it will be far from a practical joke.
The bill is fairly short (compared to say, the Affordable Care Act) and not too difficult to read, never-the-less, let’s break it down.
First off, the bill was co-sponsored by 123 Congressmen – every single one of them Democrats.  This is a partisan attempt to “do something” about guns (something other than enforcing and prosecuting our current laws).  It also shows us the Democrat’s disdain for the Constitution.
Usually in bills, the Definitions section is mundane and not critical to a general understanding of the bill’s intention.  Not so in this case.  The Definitions section is the most alarming and maddening part of this bill, so let’s start there.
It is the amendment of Section 921(a) Title 18, USC (a)(36) that is most relevant here.  They are defining the term “semiautomatic assault weapon” which they use in the body of the bill as the term for what they are intending to ban.  They break it down by firearm type and this is a summary of the most relevant definitions:
“Semiautomatic assault weapon” means any of the following, regardless of caliber or manufacture.
  1. Rifles – a semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    1. A pistol grip
    2. A forward grip
    3. A folding, telescoping or detachable stock
    4. A barrel shroud
    5. A threaded barrel
  2. Pistols – a semiautomatic pistol that accepts a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    1. A threaded barrel
    2. A second pistol grip
    3. A barrel shroud
    4. A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
  3. Shotguns – a semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
    1. A folding, telescoping or detachable stock
    2. A pistol grip
    3. A detachable magazine
    4. A forward grip
  4. All AK type rifles
  5. All AR type rifles

Additionally, it defines “large capacity ammunition feeding device” as:

A magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Section 3 then makes it unlawful to:
Import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess a “semiautomatic assault weapon” or “large capacity ammunition feeding device” – unless you’re a government or campus law enforcement officer.
It then “grandfathers” “semiautomatic assault weapons” that were manufactured before the enactment of the bill.  However, it also requires “secure storage” and control of grandfathered firearms to prevent their possession by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm by law.  It further allows the government to confiscate a grandfathered “large capacity ammunition feeding device” under the same rules that allow them to confiscate firearms and ammunition in a persons possession when committing an illegal act.
Section 5 requires the transfer of any grandfathered firearm to be done through a licensed third party who will perform a background check on the recipient and who will be required to notify law enforcement if they fail the background check.
That is the meat of it.  There are many other particulars in the bill and I strongly urge you to read through it for yourself.
In summary, this bill smells just like the previous “Assault Weapons Ban” in that it bans rifles, pistols and shotguns if they have ‘scary features’ that actually have practical safety and control purposes.  It’s ok for me to own a Remington 700 (my sniper rifle) – as long as it doesn’t have something scary like a barrel shroud to dissipate heat.
It also covers the Democrats favorite over-hyped issue of magazines that hold more than the randomly selected number of 10 rounds of ammunition.
The whole trumped up excuse for re-enacting this ban is to limit the rare “mass shooting event”, so it begs the question:
Would the enactment of this bill in any way effect mass shooting events?
Anyone who is familiar with firearms and the items addressed in this bill will intuitively know that it will have little to no effect on mass shootings.
What it does do however, is infringe (further) on law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms by limiting the type of arms they are allowed to possess.
I personally find it despicable that government employed citizens are tightly grouped into a separate class than joe-average citizens in what types of firearms the government gives them permission to own.
WE are the militia that is necessary to the security of a free state, limiting our firepower by banning AR and AK type firearms severely limits our ability to secure our freedoms with equal firepower against those who would encroach on it.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>