H.R.4269 – To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
Yup, here we go again. The bill title is already posted at the Congress website, has 123 co-sponsors at the time of publishing this post, all with the (D) next to their names….and no text. Another case of “You need to approve the bill to see what’s in it?” Not gonna fly.
The bill was introduced by Representative David N. Cicilline (R.I.)
But you have to admit that the bit of “the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited” calls attention rather quick. And also is telling me something: They are royally pissed off. And it is not because they are worried about “Assault Weapons” since you have a better chance of being killed as a pedestrian by a car (4,743 deaths, 2012) than by any type of rifle (298 deaths, 2012), but because their message is not only not getting across, it is being plainly ignored even in the staunchest of Liberal fiefdoms like California where people are flocking to gun stores to buy whatever is in the shelves and goes “pew-pew.”
Even though I do not see a lot of future with this bill, we cannot take its dismissal for granted. According to The Hill, the idea is to block any new manufacturing of Evil Black Rifles, restrict the sale of those already in the hands of citizens and enhance the background checks. However, I saw something in the article that called my attention:
The bill would intensify background checks for people looking to buy any of the estimated 8 million to 9 million assault weapons that are already in circulation.
I am not a Constitutional Expert and I expect that if I am wrong, a kind reader would correct me but I seem to recall both in United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller something about weapons in common use not being subjected to bans and undue burdens on their ownership? Then 8 million to 9 million “assault weapons” are hardly a small unimportant amount that can be heavily controlled by the government.
Just a thought.