There is a new anti-gun bill in the Senate, sponsored by Senators King and Heinrich.

The GOSAFE Act.

What does GOSAFE stand for?

THE GAS-OPERATED SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS EXCLUSION (GOSAFE) ACT

The laughable aspect of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was that it was so easy to get around the ban by removing certain features like adjustable buttstocks, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs.

You could buy any number of rifles that were functionally the same as a banned gun, except for some cosmetic and ergonomic features.

This bill cuts right to the heart of the issue by going after gas operated guns, regardless of features.

Senator Heinrich created this handy little diagram to show what will be regulated.

 

The actual text of the bill states that any gas, blowback, or recoil operated semi-automatic centerfire rifle is considered gas operated.

 

The bill also requires all high capacity magazines to be serialized like a firearm to prevent illegal transfer after the date the bill goes into effect.

It also prevents the transfer of all prohibited magazines, including to descendants.

Senator Heinrich, very graciously, has offered to buy back your guns and magazines before they have to be seized after you die because they can’t be inherited by your family.

The GOSAFE Act will prevent stockpiling of these lethal firearms and large capacity magazines, and also ensure no one loses the value of any firearms they currently have, by establishing a voluntary buy-back program, which would allow firearm owners to voluntarily turn over and receive compensation for non-transferrable firearms and magazines as defined by this legislation.

This bill is so blatantly unconstitutional it’s almost silly, but they did it anyway.

They finally got enough technical knowledge to write a bill that did exactly what they wanted and cut off avenues for compliant run-arounds.

After the George Floyd riots, 10/7, and the pro-Hamas pogroms, the idea of gun control should be absolutely dead for any reasonable citizens.

This tells me they want the mob to be able to terrorize you.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

21 thoughts on “They are getting smarter and more malicious with their bills”
  1. Yup…. My “buddy” an(g)us…. Fuk him.
    He always was and always will be a cant cunt pussy liberal getting rich off the system and surrounded by armed security… I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.

  2. I see this as an attempt to move the “Overton window” for gun control. Compared to this, say, the Clinton ban seems downright reasonable … as J.Kb himself pointed out in the article.
    .
    That’s one reason I’ve become, in effect, an absolutist on gun control: simply, No.

  3. Wow. When I saw that the “GO” in “GOSAFE” stood for “gas-operated”, my first thought was a piston-driven AR, but they specifically included that. They really are getting smarter in their bills’ language.
    .
    However, it still irks me to no end that they “offer” a “voluntary buy-back” for non-transferable arms. They claim to offer fair-market value for the guns and magazines, but the items are non-transferable; they cannot legally be traded on the market, so what’s the market value? There is none, so they don’t have to give anything. (It’s like asking, “What’s the market value for a human kidney?” It can’t legally be bought or sold, so it has no market value.)
    .
    In the end, my heirs cannot legally inherit my guns, so I can either take the “buy-back” offer or have the government seize them by force (because you know they’re gonna send ARMED MF’ers to take them, with authorization to shoot anyone who resists) and give me nothing. That’s some “voluntary buy-back” right there.
    .
    In my mind, it’s like testifying against the mugger who stole your money at knife-point, and when he takes the stand he says, “I didn’t mug you. I offered you the chance to donate your cash to the community, and you did. The fact I was also holding a knife at the time is irrelevant.” And then having the judge accept that B.S. argument.

    1. “buy-back” is two lies in one word: “buy” because that implies a seller, which is a person who voluntarily offers to hand over something in exchange for a consideration he considers adequate, and “back” because that implies the item is returning to one who previously owned it. In the case of what the government is talking about here, neither part is true, and “unconstitutional confiscation” is the correct description.

  4. My new question, given the detailed and mechanically-savvy verbiage in this bill: Who in the gun community helped write it?
    .
    Military-background oath-breaker?
    .
    A H&K executive, on the promise of some sweet, sweet fed.gov supply contracts? (The unofficial company view of the “civilian” firearms market is, “You suck, and we hate you.”)
    .
    Rob Pincus? (I notice his new whiz-bang “personal defense” pistol would be 100% exempt.)
    .
    Some other “Leftist first, gun owner (or gunsmith) a distant second” dupe?
    .
    I seriously doubt King or Heinrich did their own homework on how guns work, but maybe they told a staffer to do it. Even still, it’s far too specific and detailed for your average intern to get from a few Wikipedia articles. So we’re back to, “Who in the gun community helped write this bill?”

    1. They’re well aware it’s unconstitutional. They don’t care.
      .
      Why should they, when there are zero consequences for introducing or passing unconstitutional laws?

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.