11 months, 2 weeks ago
Here is Senator Feinstein’s proposed law. Of course, the remarkable thing is that not a single aspect of the law would have stopped the Connecticut shooting, or the Colorado shooting for that matter.
Magazine size is irrelevant, since the shooter was unimpeded (which is the core problem anyway). Registration of firearms is also irrelevant, since the firearm owner was fully legal (the firearm was stolen and then used to perpetrate another crime). Finally, grandfathering firearms is also irrelevant, since this firearm would clearly have fallen under such a stipulation (which Feinstein sees as necessary to pass the law).
Also note that the old issue of “sporting purposes” is back in the framework. Recall what I said about such a test.
The ATF must decide what is the “sporting purposes” category by populating the list with examples, and then make the claim that such-and-such an example is deemed to be or not to be a “sporting purpose” because it is or isn’t on the list. It reasons in a circle.
While ATF lawyers might disagree, for something to have a “sporting purpose” means nothing more than it can be taken to the range and operated by the owner to his or her entertainment or training. The shooting skills – whether for official competitions such as IDPA or 3-Gun, or for unofficial activities such as regular range visits for the purpose of betterment at the science of firearms operation – are sports. All of them. Period. This is non-negotiable. If it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.
But then again, this isn’t really about sporting purposes, or safety, or public concerns, is it? It’s about government control, as such progressive laws always are. Gun control has always been about gun control. Progressives aren’t liberal. They’re statists and control freaks and micro-managers and social engineers. This proposed law is another testimony to that.