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.

 

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

16 thoughts on “They are not even trying to hide it anymore.”
  1. “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited”

    Purpose is expressly to infringe upon rights…. well that’s a refreshing break from their usual dishonesty.

    1. I’m ashamed but not surprised that two of Oregon’s five Reps (Blumenauer and Bonamici) have co-sponsored this. I believe two of the other three would vote for it, too.

      This should be brought in as evidence at their trial.

  2. The democrats will try anything and everything to get people to vote for a democratic government.They want to try and fool people into thinking they are the only ones trying to do something against gun violence,but gun violence is primarily with the criminals and not law abiding citizens and them are the ones they are attacking and not the criminals at all.They are actually helping the criminals if you take a honest look at what they are doing.Gun control is against honest people and not criminals.

    1. Bean,
      We all have to be careful not to assist the anti-firearm crowd in their attempt to insert into common use the term “gun violence”, as if it is a special type of violence. For one reason, it’s easy for them to lump in legitimate defensive gun use, police use, accidents, and suicides into the overall number of gun incidents, and thus inflate their stats.

  3. “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited”

    That’ll simplify the inevitable court challenge.

      1. About the only “bad thing” that came out of Heller, was the expectation by many that all gun laws were supposed to be automatically nullified and all the lower courts would follow that principle. We need to get used to the idea that you simply do not stop and reverse 70 years of Anti Gun inertia in a couple of years and even a decade.
        If there is a fight with a long game strategy attached to it, is ours.

  4. United States v. Miller also was specific in their argument that the banning of the short shotgun was based on the fact that it WASN’T a common military arm, lending support that military arms are protected as a class for civilians…..

  5. Well, I fully expected Diana Degette (D-CO) to have her name attached. She didn’t disappoint. After all, the woman who thinks magazines can’t be reloaded is sure to attach her name anything even remotely anti-gun.

    I’m a little disappointed that Perlmutter and Polis didn’t put their names on there yet. I guess they have more than two brain cells to rub together, unlike Degette, and recognize that this issue may sink them altogether if they’re not careful.

  6. Why do I get the distinct impression that as soon as congress closes the “Charleston loophole” an executive order ir act of Congress will go out that defunds NICS and puts the program on an indefinite hold.

    1. You’re not the only one. In fact, that is precisely why default proceeds (now dubbed the “Charleston loophole”) were demanded/required in the first place.

      So that shutting down the background check system doesn’t automatically shut down the lawful exercise of 2A rights.

  7. Representative David N. Cicilline (R.I.) needs to realize that we have firearms specifically so we can shoot his sorry ass for even proposing this unConstitutional ban.

    Keep pushing Progressive/Democrats and you will start the Second ACW and we will win and you will lose completely.

  8. I am also ashamed but not surprised to see all the CT sponsors on it. No way our current 2 assault weapons bans have affected crime or prevented it. And never mind that the justice department found the first Federal one ineffective…

    I agree with your reading of miller and Heller but taken one step further my interpretation when read together miller and Heller should be saying real military assault rifles and machine guns are protected and cannot be banned as a class because they are in common use.

    I have read other stuff about miller from other people that go along the lines of miller is not so much a ruling but an opinion because of the various hininks associated with it and it doesn’t carry the same force. No idea if that is true or not, I’ll leave it to the other readers to fill me in there.

    Regardless, there is cronic under enforcement of the second and amendment and institutional disenfranchisement that would have people up in arms (lol) if it was anything else. Then again I’m just telling you guys what you already know…

  9. Hey, it’s *not* unlimited.

    No private citizen should be allowed to become a nuclear power, and frankly any explosives larger than a hand grenade should require a tax stamp.

    Heck, I’d even be willing to go so far as to say that people buying full auto weapons and rocket launchers should be required to pass a background check.

    *THAT* is reasonable regulation.

    1. Heck, I’d even be willing to go so far as to say that people buying full auto weapons and rocket launchers should be required to pass a background check.

      *THAT* is reasonable regulation

      OK, who gets to tell him?

Comments are closed.

Login or register to comment.