by Matt Vespa
After the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, which left 17 people dead, the calls for new gun laws have reached a fever pitch again. Of course, Congress will pass no new laws on the subject. There’s no need, as it’s becoming increasingly clear that enforcement of the current laws that could have prevented shooter Nikolas Cruz from obtaining firearms was egregiously absent. Federal, state, and local authorities failed miserably to act upon the many red flags presented by this disturbed man. Yet, at the state-level, it’s a different ballgame.
In Florida, Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed into law an age limit increase on long guns. You now have to be 21 to purchase such firearms, which is an unconstitutional infringement on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association has rightfully filed a lawsuit over this provision. In Oregon, a new initiative from a religious group is taking it a step forward. They want to ban any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, and that can hold more than ten rounds. They also want current owners of these firearms, law-abiding Americans, to take them out of the state, register them, sell it to a FFL dealer, destroy it, or turn them over. That’s right, folks—full-blown gun confiscation. Right now, the anti-gun church group is collecting signatures. The hope is that they fall short (via KGW8):
Filed by an interfaith religious group in Portland, Initiative Petition 42 would also require legal gun owners to surrender or register their assault weapons or face felony charges, according to language released Tuesday.
The group said it aims to get enough signatures to put the measure before voters in the November general election. They would need 88,000 signatures by July 6 to get the measure on the ballot.
The proposal defines an assault weapon as any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and any feature like folding or telescoping stock, or that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The proposal would require any person in legal possession of an assault weapon to sell, surrender or remove the weapon from the state, or render it inoperable, within 120 days of passage, according to the language.
Oh, and of course, the police and military are exempt. Even Oregon Democrats aren’t going near this because they know the political consequences, said state Rep. Bill Post. It captures what everyone on the conservative, gun rights-supporting side has always known about the gun control movement: their agenda is confiscation and the abolition of the Second Amendment. It’s why we can’t trust them—and never should. There are no good people of faith on this subject. Do I wish we could have a debate on gun politics? Yes—but not with insane people. Also, to the people in the video who support the “assault rifle” ban, they’re already banned. No new sales of automatic rifles post-1986 are permitted. Those who obtain an ATF tax stamp for weapons under the 1934 National Firearms Act, which includes automatic firearms, must go through a background check, have their weapon registered with the ATF, and pay the fee. The process could take up to a year or more, but, again, these transfers are only for weapons pre-1986.
by Simon Green
An unanswered question in the Florida gun debate: What to do with existing guns? That’s the scary ass headline hovering over a tampabaytimes.com article written in the aftermath of Florida’s new gun control legislation. The implication is clear: Dems don’t think it’s enough to ban “assault weapons” (which the new bill does not do). Something must be done to disarm MSR-armed civilians. No really . . .
When the Senate debated SB 7026— the gun legislation that just landed on Gov. Rick Scott’s desk — Sen. Linda Stewart, D-Orlando sponsored an amendments that would have banned the “sale or transfer” of certain assault weapons. Under the proposal, Floridians would have had until July 1, 2019, to obtain a certificate of possession or remove their assault weapon from the state.
A policy like that would pose logistical challenges, experts said.
“If all gun sales were banned tomorrow, there’d still be plenty of guns in the U.S. in 25 years,” Jay Corzine, a professor of sociology at University of Central Florida said. Corzine researches the impact of different weapon types on mass shootings. He added that such a ban would likely be subject to legal challenges.
“Once guns are out in circulation, it’s very difficult to bring them back,” said Jaclyn Schildkraut, an expert on mass shooting research and an assistant professor of public justice at the State University of New York at Oswego. She noted that many gun control measures would punish law-abiding gun owners while likely doing little to deter criminals — who commit all mass shootings — from obtaining weapons.
Thank you for that rational and realistic analysis. Precisely the kind of logic that Florida Democrats are happy to overlook. Or, worse, ignore . . .
Those factors put Florida Democrats in a tough spot. But Rodriguez said the scale of the challenge shouldn’t be an argument against addressing it. “There are all kinds of ways of dealing with the fact that, yes, these weapons are very prevalent right now,” Rodriguez said, citing programs like gun buybacks. “It’s a question of the state dedicating resources to a problem.”
Those are the most chilling words I’ve read in a long time. The article’s closing quote from Schildkraut isn’t quite as bad, but it’s bad enough.
Even if new laws aren’t the answer, Schildkraut said, “Our job in society is to make (mass shootings) more difficult, not to make (them) easier.”
As far as gun control advocates are concerned, even if gun control doesn’t work, it works! As long as it puts Americans on a slippery slope to confiscation. In case you didn’t know.