Rolling Stone On Assault Weapons Ban
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 4 months ago
In a major defeat for the National Rifle Association, the Supreme Court decided this week not to take up a challenge to one of the toughest gun-control statutes in America, a law on the books in Highland Park, Illinois.
Through this inaction, the Supreme Court has cleared a path for other communities across the nation to:
—outlaw assault weapons and high capacity magazines,
—declare these arms contraband and confiscate them,
—and hit violators with jail time and/or a sizable fine.
“The Supreme Court has now signaled that this is consistent with Second Amendment,” Mike McLively, staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Rolling Stone. “This could become a national model.”
A national model. Right. The writer clearly doesn’t have a clue as to the consequences of this being a national model. The modes of warfare the resistance could take are numerous.
First of all, since person-to-person transfers of guns is legal and Form 4473 isn’t a determinative record of gun ownership, there is no way for the *.fed to ascertain who has a gun and who doesn’t. The only way to effect such a confiscation would be door-to-door searches of every home in America, contrary of course to the constitution.
Next, upon such searches, very few firearms would be found. Most of them would be hidden, all but a few sacrificial lamb guns the owners intended to be found anyway. It would be a gigantic waste of money for which there wouldn’t be adequate money or manpower resources.
Third, when a banned firearm was used in a self defense situation, rather than go to the state penitentiary for ownership of a banned weapon when the goal was mere defense of family, law enforcement officers might be shot as they entered homes.
Or in the case that weapons were confiscated after such events and the perpetrator (i.e., the one who defended his wife during a home invasion) had been dispositioned through the court, some particularly ill-tempered gun owner might decide to take vengeance on the cop who put him in prison, or perhaps all of his cop buddies.
Or perhaps the gun owner’s friends might not like what they saw and use this as an opportunity to warn other LEOs of the dangers of said confiscations.
Oh dear. The manifestations of this conflict are far too numerous to detail, and then what I’ve put forward here is only the more pedestrian and mundane of the possibilities.
No gun confiscation scheme is a national model for anything but civil war. That Rolling Stone doesn’t get that speaks volumes, not of the worth of that periodical, which we all knew anyway, but of the cluelessness of the progressive mind. That’s the most troubling aspect of this commentary. We can only pray that they realize the carnage that would ensue under their schema. If they do and desire this anyway, then there is a cold wind blowing as a harbinger of a dark storm.
On December 10, 2015 at 9:18 am, robertsgunshop said:
A gun owner isn’t home when the team shows up. A family member is killed by the team. The gun owner goes tot he nearest politicians house at 0300, sets it on fire and shoots everyone that runs out. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They don’t consider the ramifications of unintended consequences.
On December 10, 2015 at 5:01 pm, Michael Schlechter said:
Islamic nutjobs are not the only people capable of acting as lone wolves.
On December 10, 2015 at 6:54 pm, Dave said:
Disinformation and BS
how’s it feel to be under the dictatorial thumb
Now we are under your Dictators Thumb…
Your ill may find yourselves under thumbs also
On December 10, 2015 at 7:41 pm, Michael Schlechter said:
Perhaps you misunderstood my message. I have no joy about the current Critter-in-Chied. Are you suggesting that I agree with the Rolling Stone article? I was merely agreeing with the commenter to whom I was responding.
On December 10, 2015 at 2:55 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:
This is why Bloomberg and Co. are focusing their efforts on state and municipal bans. And thus far — in Sunnyvale, in LA, in Oregon and Washington and New York and Connecticut — they are winning. And they are being honest about their end game via the NYT and Rolling Stone. Which means they think they have it in the bag.
On December 10, 2015 at 3:35 pm, amongoose said:
Or they think they can ban enough weapons in enough states to make confiscation, and keep the resulting violence confined (along with martial law) to red states.
On December 10, 2015 at 6:56 pm, Rob said:
They have placed this into States Rights….
CW2 clock , tick tock, thats all thats left
On December 11, 2015 at 4:16 pm, John Shore said:
It is quite possible that the Supremes are waiting for that one case, the case that meets their ‘ripeness’ standard, the one that most shocks their collective sense of UnConstitutionality, before they finally act to take the matter of the 2nd Amendment and ‘militia-type firearms,’ or ‘firearms in common use’ up once again. So far, the Highland Park laws have only served to require that no firearm on their voluminous list can remain in their legal boundaries; As yet, the law-enforcement arm of that municipality hasn’t done any seizing of property without compensation, although the law does serve to deprive people of their lawful property while, at the same time, should they ‘modify’ the listed weapons in their possession to make them legal, reducing their market value substantially.
When, not if, a seizure occurs, where a law-enforcement officer discovers a prohibited firearm or ‘high-capacity magazine’ in a home or vehicle and takes it without recompense to its owner, and when the owner is thus charged with a misdemeanor crime, that case might just be the triggering one that displays the amount of ‘ripeness’ for the Supremes to be interested in.
The actual Highland Park ordinance makes interesting reading; It begins with actual documentation of the hysterical and irrational ‘needs’ for the ordinance, and continues on as merely a duplication of the Feinsteinian Dream Law in great detail of what is banned, with a long list of especially-evil guns that must be mentioned by name (most are rarities or exotica that are highly unlikely to appear with any regularity, nor are they particularly notable in their evilness). Comparing the tenets of the ordinance with an actual evil firearm of note, a Ruger 10/22, if fitted with a thumbhole full-length (and fixed) stock, is an ‘assault weapon,’ even if it has its original 10-round rotary magazine, because it is both ‘semi-automatic’ and capable of having a larger-capacity detachable magazine, AND/OR because of the clearly-deadly and specifically-mentioned thumbhole stock (any one feature does the trick).
Oddly, the evil and deadly tube-magazine lever-action rifle is excluded from the 10-shot magazine maximum, as are tube-fed .22 rifles. However, tube-fed semi-auto shotguns with fixed magazines of more than 5 shots or detachable magazines are prohibited.
We can only wait and see what comes next; In any intensely Democrat-infested locale, we can surely expect more of the same, and can only hope that something particularly egregious is enacted or enforced to shove the Supreme Court over the edge.
On December 12, 2015 at 12:44 pm, Torcer said:
And that isn’t first time the national socialist left has called for Gun Confiscation either:
On December 14, 2015 at 10:35 pm, callmechaz said:
Gun confiscation has already occurred in the US. re: Katrina “There’s dangerous people roaming these neighborhoods and we can’t afford to let folks have guns in such an environment!” I may not live to see the results of CW2, but then I’m 64 and have already lived a long life. A lot of good men went to sleep to keep me free–I owe them.
On December 26, 2015 at 8:57 pm, Jim Wiseman said:
What makes these clowns think that indecision by any court (or even a decision, for that matter) would allow a relatively tiny handful of people to take away something that is a God-given right to keep and bear? Their hubris is going to cause someone on their side to get hurt.