Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Wouldn’t Prevent Mass Shootings; Speaks Before Facts Are Known

Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban: Sen. Diane Feinstein renews calls for an Assault Weapon Ban would  not prevent mass shootings. What’s more, the Sr. Senator from California renewed her perennial call to ban before the facts of the Navy Yard Shooting were clear.

Following the tragedy at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, D.C., Senator Feinsten is renewing her perennial call for more gun control laws. Feinstein said: “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Which begs the question, what could have been done that was not already done that might have prevented this tragedy?

Washington Naval Yard is a military installation located in the nation’s capital. As a military site, it is a gun-free zone. Located in D.C., it is illegal to carry a gun outside of your home. Access to the Naval Yard requires passing an armed checkpoint. It doesn’t get much more ‘controlled’ than that.

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time,” Feinstein said.

NBC news reported that the attack began with a shotgun, but by the end of the incident, the attacker also had picked up a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 off a fallen police officer; a victim of the shooting. CNN also reported that, “sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect”, and that the weapons besides the shotgun “may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.” So “obtain” in this case appears to mean taking off the body of a murdered police officer armed with the weapons. One wonders what law even could prevent such a thing from occurring in the future. UPDATE: FBI confirmed NO AR-15 was used, after the initial publication of this article.

Feinstein’s comment about the “endless loss of life” is also wrong. As I have written in this column recently, in the last 20 years homicides, violent crime and gun murder have been cut by 50% – in the case of gun murders in particular, they have dropped significantly by 65% since 1993.

This gets us to the heart of the matter: a so-called “assault weapons” ban does not reduce crime or prevent mass shootings. Calling for one, while grandstanding and exploiting a tragedy to push a personal agenda, may make for a nice soundbyte for unscrupulous politicians, but it ultimately futile. They admit as much. There are several problems that make any assault weapons ban unworkable.

First, rifles – which includes bolt-action, semi-automatic rifles that are not labeled “assault weapons”, like the rancher Mini-14, as well as so-called “assault weapons” – are rarely used in homicides. FBI data for 2011, the latest year available shows 323 murders with any type of rifle. Handguns are by far the most commonly used gun in homicide at 6,220 (out of 12,664 total homicides). So even if legislation were successful in preventing 100% of all rifle homicides, it still is minuscule reduction in the overall murder rate.

Also relevant is that Feinstein’s failed attempt at renewing a federal assault weapon ban from earlier this year specifically exempted over 2,258 makes and models of rifles she believed were ‘hunting rifles’ (apparently ignorant of the fact that AR-15 rifles can be chambered to fire a plethora of ammunition from .22LR, to .50BMG and is used to hunt everything from varmint to deer, hog, elk and large game). Included in this list are many varieties of shotgun rifles. There was nothing in it to prevent the Naval Yard shooter from legally possessing the shotgun he began his attack with.

Second, there is the problem of all the existing weapon stock that would be “grandfathered in.” This means already purchased so-called “assault weapons” would be exempted and their owners allowed to keep possession of them; only new purchases would be banned under the failed bill. This means that the millions of so-called “assault rifles” are still available for use.

Third, the highest year for mass shootings – 2003 – occurred during the last federal Assault Weapons Ban. Columbine and Virginia Tech occurred during the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Virginia Tech shooter – the worst school shooting in U.S. History – used handguns & mostly 10-round magazines. There is no logical reason to conclude that a ban would prevent a future mass shooting, because past bans did not. Academic researchers and government agencies conclude the same thing: the CDC, National Research Council and others found the last federal Assault Weappons ban produced no clear, measurable reduction in crime or mass shootings.

UPDATE: Feinstein's proposed ban would not include the shotgun used by the shooter at the Navy Yard. This means even if she were able to see this legislation enacted, it would have had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on this shooting.

Feinstein’s comments amount to empty rhetoric and meaningless hyperbole. Her failed, proposed legislation would not be a solution to end “enough is enough”. When one considers her words to “resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence” one wonders if she means speaking before the facts of this case are fully known, or pushing a policy that is known from the start to be a non-solution.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 17, 2013).

Assault Weapons Ban Wouldn’t Prevent Mass Shootings; Politicians Speak Before Facts Are Known

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 18, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 4 comments

Following the tragedy at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, D.C., Senator Feinsten is renewing her perennial call for more gun control laws. Feinstein said: “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Which begs the question, what could have been done that was not already done that might have prevented this tragedy?

Washington Naval Yard is a military installation located in the nation’s capital. As a military site, it is a gun-free zone. Located in D.C., it is illegal to carry a gun outside of your home. Access to the Naval Yard requires passing an armed checkpoint. It doesn’t get much more ‘controlled’ than that.

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time,” Feinstein said.

NBC news reported that the attack began with a shotgun, but by the end of the incident, the attacker also had picked up a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 off a fallen police officer; a victim of the shooting. CNN also reported that, “sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect”, and that the weapons besides the shotgun “may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.” So “obtain” in this case appears to mean taking off the body of a murdered police officer armed with the weapons. One wonders what law even couldprevent such a thing from occurring in the future. UPDATE: FBI confirmed NO AR-15 was used, after the initial publication of this article.

Feinstein’s comment about the “endless loss of life” is also wrong. As I have written in this column recently, in the last 20 years homicides, violent crime and gun murder have been cut by 50% – in the case of gun murders in particular, they have dropped significantly by 65% since 1993.

This gets us to the heart of the matter: a so-called “assault weapons” ban does not reduce crime or prevent mass shootings. Calling for one, while grandstanding and exploiting a tragedy to push a personal agenda, may make for a nice soundbyte for unscrupulous politicians, but it ultimately futile. They admit as much. There are several problems that make any assault weapons ban unworkable.

First, rifles – which includes bolt-action, semi-automatic rifles that are not labeled “assault weapons”, like the rancher Mini-14, as well as so-called “assault weapons” – are rarely used in homicides. FBI data for 2011, the latest year available shows 323 murders with any type of rifle. Handguns are by far the most commonly used gun in homicide at 6,220 (out of 12,664 total homicides). So even if legislation were successful in preventing 100% of all rifle homicides, it still is minuscule reduction in the overall murder rate.

Also relevant is that Feinstein’s failed attempt at renewing a federal assault weapon ban from earlier this year specifically exempted over 2,258 makes and models of rifles she believed were ‘hunting rifles’ (apparently ignorant of the fact that AR-15 rifles can be chambered to fire a plethora of ammunition from .22LR, to .50BMG and is used to hunt everything from varmint to deer, hog, elk and large game). Included in this list are many varieties of shotgun rifles. There was nothing in it to prevent the Naval Yard shooter from legally possessing the shotgun he began his attack with.

Second, there is the problem of all the existing weapon stock that would be “grandfathered in.” This means already purchased so-called “assault weapons” would be exempted and their owners allowed to keep possession of them; only new purchases would be banned under the failed bill. This means that the millions of so-called “assault rifles” are still available for use.

Third, the highest year for mass shootings – 2003 – occurred during the last federal Assault Weapons Ban. Columbine and Virginia Tech occurred during the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Virginia Tech shooter – the worst school shooting in U.S. History – used handguns & mostly 10-round magazines. There is no logical reason to conclude that a ban would prevent a future mass shooting, because past bans did not. Academic researchers and government agencies conclude the same thing: the CDC, National Research Council and others found the last federal Assault Weappons ban produced no clear, measurable reduction in crime or mass shootings.

UPDATE: Feinstein’s proposed ban would not include the shotgun used by the shooter at the Navy Yard. This means even if she were able to see this legislation enacted, it would have had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on this shooting.

Feinstein’s comments amount to empty rhetoric and meaningless hyperbole. Her failed, proposed legislation would not be a solution to end “enough is enough”. When one considers her words to “resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence” one wonders if she means speaking before the facts of this case are fully known, or pushing a policy that is known from the start to be a non-solution.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Sept 18, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Myth: The AR-15 is Not Actually a Hunting Rifle

The AR-15 rifle has been the subject of extreme controversy and national debate in recent weeks.

Many gun control advocates such as CNN's Piers Morgan, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, FormerPresident Bill Clinton, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — whose proposed gun legislation would ban all AR-15's regardless of configuration — have argued that AR-15's are not hunting rifles, and should face significant gun control legislation. This contention is one that stems from ignorance or willful disregard for the facts. In reality, AR-15's make excellent hunting rifles and are normally used for that purpose. They are configurable via a separate upper and lower part that make it possible for the user to configure the rifle for various types of bullet cartridges. Depending on what game is being hunted, and what bullet the rifle is configured to fire, virtually all AR-15 rifles are useful for hunting.

The confusion may arise from the fact that the AR-15 rifle is what some gun enthusiasts refer to as a “platform,” which means it has modular components that can be swapped out. Rifles have what is referred to as a receiver. The receiver is the part of a firearm that houses the operating parts, like the trigger and firing bolt. AR-15 rifles have two major parts to the receiver, called an upper and a lower; the "upper" part can be changed on the same rifle. So while many AR-15's are chambered for .223 (5.56 metric), they can also be chambered for .204 Ruger, 5.7x28, .243 WIN, .260 REM, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.8SPC, 7mm, .30 REM, 7.62x39, .308, .338 Lapua, .338 Federal, .450 Bushmaster, .458, .50 Beowulf, .50 BMG and even 9mm, .40 and .45ACP handgun cartridges.

The AR-15 platform is known for its accuracy, especially over longer distances. For some types of hunting, this characteristic is particularly useful for successful hunts. Each bullet type has varying effective ranges. The .223 is effective from 400-600 meters. An AR-15 chambered in .308 has an effective range to about 800 meters; .338 Lapua's effective range is about 1500 meters; and .50 BMG has the range of about one mile.

How useful are these various kinds of AR-15's for hunting? Well, Piers Morgan's claim that you wouldn't hunt a deer with one is only sometimes true — if, and only if — you are talking about .223 chambered AR-15's, and more critically, depending on where you live. In many states — but not all — it's not legal to hunt deer with this round because some believe the round isn't powerful enough to kill a deer, but just badly wound it. But some states allow deer hunting with .223 bullets for a variety of reasons and differing circumstances. At any rate, a .223 is perfect for small-game hunting, like coyote, fox, prairie dog, or other similar small-sized game. This is also sometimes referred to varmint hunting and many AR-15's are designed and marketed specifically as varmint hunting rifles. These typically have longer barrels to give the bullet better accuracy at the longer ranges typically involved when hunting this kind of game.

Besides small game and varmint hunting, larger-sized game can be adequately hunted with larger-sized bullet chambering. Boar hunters often use 6.8SPC or .308 bullets. Deer or Elk hunters may choose a .308 or .338 Lapua for large game hunting. Some hunters even hunt black bear with .338 Federal. The designers of .458 claim that it will stop or seriously impair anything that moves. Likewise, .50 BMG is an extremely powerful round, capable of taking out vehicles if fired into an engine block, and is quite suitable for large or dangerous game (think Safari hunting).

All AR-15's are useful for hunting some kind of game. AR-15's are capable of having the upper receiver changed so the user can hunt different kinds of game with the same rifle. So depending on what one wishes to hunt for, from prairie dogs and coyotes to water buffalo, and deer and elk in-between, AR-15's do in fact make excellent hunting rifles.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February 1, 2013). 

The AR-15 Actually is a Hunting Rifle

by Matt MacBradaigh | Feb 1, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The AR-15 rifle has been the subject of extreme controversy and national debate, with pro-gun control advocates, politicians and talking heads stating the AR-15 is not a hunting rifle – that no “self-respecting deer hunter” needs 30 rounds of ammunition. Education defeats propaganda, and the facts once again prove these claims wrong.

CNN’s Piers Morgan, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Former President Bill Clinton, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and others, have argued that AR-15’s are not hunting rifles, and should face significant gun control legislation. This contention is one that stems from ignorance or willful disregard for the facts. In reality, AR-15’s make excellent hunting rifles and are normally used for that purpose. They are configurable via a separate upper and lower part that make it possible for the user to configure the rifle for various types of bullet cartridges. Depending on what game is being hunted, and what bullet the rifle is configured to fire, virtually all AR-15 rifles are useful for hunting.

The confusion may arise from the fact that the AR-15 rifle has modular components that can be swapped out. Rifles have what is referred to as a receiver. The receiver is the part of a firearm that houses the operating parts, like the trigger and firing bolt. AR-15 rifles have two major parts to the receiver, called an upper and a lower; the “upper” part can be changed on the same rifle. So while many AR-15’s are chambered for .223 (5.56 metric), they can also be chambered for .204 Ruger, 5.7×28, .243 WIN, .260 REM, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.8SPC, 7mm, .30 REM, 7.62×39, .308, .338 Lapua, .338 Federal, .450 Bushmaster, .458, .50 Beowulf, .50 BMG and even in handgun cartridges like 9mm, .40 and .45ACP. The AR is a very versatile platform. Technically, some of the larger round chamberings are in AR-10 rifles, which is slightly heavier than the AR-15. Most people, even many gun enthusiasts, would be hard-pressed to spot the difference by simply looking at the rifles unless they inspected them up close. It’s a safe bet many of the gun critics wouldn’t know the difference if they tripped over one.

The AR-15 platform is known for its accuracy, especially over longer distances. For some types of hunting, this characteristic is particularly useful for successful hunts. Each bullet type has varying effective ranges. The .223 is effective from 400-600 meters. An AR-15 chambered in .308 has an effective range to about 800 meters; .338 Lapua’s effective range is about 1500 meters; and .50 BMG has the range of about one mile.

How useful are these various kinds of AR-15’s for hunting? Well, the claim that you wouldn’t hunt a deer with one is only sometimes true — if, and only if — you are talking about .223 chambered AR-15’s, AND more critically, depending on where you live. In many states — but not all — it’s not legal to hunt deer with this round because some believe the round isn’t powerful enough to kill a deer, but just badly wound it. But some states allow deer hunting with .223 bullets for a variety of reasons and differing circumstances. At any rate, a .223 is perfect for small-game hunting, like coyote, fox, prairie dog, or other similar small-sized game. This is also sometimes referred to varmint hunting and many AR-15’s are designed and marketed specifically as varmint hunting rifles. These typically have longer barrels to give the bullet better accuracy at the longer ranges typically involved when hunting this kind of game.

Besides small game and varmint hunting, larger-sized game can be adequately hunted with larger-sized bullet chambering. Boar hunters often use 6.8SPC or .308 rounds. Deer or Elk hunters may choose a .308 or .338 for large game hunting. Some hunters will even hunt black bear with .338 Federal. The designers of .458 claim that it will stop or seriously impair anything that moves. Likewise, .50 BMG is an extremely powerful round, capable of taking out vehicles if fired into an engine block, and is quite suitable for large or dangerous game (i.e. Safari hunting).

All AR’s are useful for hunting some kind of game. AR-15’s are capable of having the upper receiver changed so the user can hunt different kinds of game with the same rifle. So depending on what one wishes to hunt for, from prairie dogs and coyotes to water buffalo, and deer and elk in-between, AR-15’s (and AR-10’s) do in fact make excellent hunting rifles.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Feb 1, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Dianne Feinstein is Misleading the Public With Her Assault Weapons Ban

Dianne Feinstein is Misleading the Public With Her Assault Weapons Ban

Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill Thursday to ban so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines.

When Feinstein appeared on PBS' Newshour to discuss her assault weapons bill, she said “it gets quite technical" and stated so-called assault weapons are “developed for military purposes to kill in close combat” adding “they aren't used for hunting."

Feinstein seems to be willfully ignoring facts to deliberately mislead you about these so-called “assault weapons.” First, she says “it gets quite technical.”

OK, let's look at the technical information about these guns. They are not “military weapons"; they look similar, or bear cosmetic resemblance, to military weapons, but they are not used by the military. The AR-15 as sold in the U.S. to civilians is a semi-automatic gun that looks like the military M4A1 carbine rifle or the M-16 battle rifle. They look nearly identical. As former Marine Joshua Boston would tell you, they are not military guns. Military soldiers mock the AR-15 calling it an “M-forgery's” a play on “M4” precisely because they are not military guns. They have functional differences. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle which can only fire one bullet per trigger squeeze. The M4A1 is capable of either burst (several rounds with one trigger squeeze) or fully automatic fire (fires until the trigger is released or there are no more bullets left) by use of a selector switch. Select fire capability is what makes an actual assault rifle what it is (for example, Connecticut – where there is a current state-level assault weapons ban – acknowledges this technical definition in their legal definition).

AR-15's are not designed for “close quarters combat,” and neither is the military M4A1, which is designed for intermediate range combat with an effective range of 400–600 meters. By contrast, sub-machine guns are designed for shorter range and potentially usable in close quarters combat.

AR-15's are hunting rifles, depending on what you're hunting and how the rifle is configured. AR-15's chambered in the standard .223 (5.56 metric) are used for varmint hunting precisely because of it's accuracy at a long distance. But AR-15's have an “upper” and “lower” part of the weapon that can be changed out – even in the field – allowing the weapon to be chambered in larger rounds, including 6.8 and .308. These rounds are used for hog hunting, and .308 may be used for hunting deer or elk.

However, contrary to the political hype, the standard .223 is not an especially dangerous round, and aside from varmints is not useful for hunting. Many states will not allow deer or elk hunting with a .223 for the very reason it is not powerful enough. By contrast, hunting cartridges like 7mm, 8mm, 270WIN, .303, 30-06 fired from bolt-action rifles are vastly more powerful.

So-called “assault rifles” are targeted because they have been used in a few high-profile shootings. They receive inordinate media attention because they look like “military-style” weapons (Note: style – or cosmetic appearance – is the key word). But these guns are not responsible for most gun violence in the U.S.
Rifles, of which so-called “assault rifles” are a subset, accounted for just 2.55% of all homicides in 2011. Mass murder accounts for less than 100 dead out of nearly 13,000 homicides. And not all mass shootings involve so-called “assault weapons”.

The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 19 magazines – mostly 10 round magazines. Neither his handgun, nor the 10 round magazines would be affected by Feinstein's proposed ban.

Feinstein must mislead us in order to make it seem that so-called “assault weapons” are more dangerous than they really are, made for purposes that they are not, and don't have the legitimate purposes that they do.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication January 25, 2013).

Lies You Are Told About Assault Weapons

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 25, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 2 comments

Anti-gun activists and politicians mislead the public and their constituents when they talk about “assault weapons” and “assault rifles”. When high-profile anti-gun politician Senator Diane Feinstein appeared on PBS’ Newshour to she claimed that so-called “assault weapons” are “developed for military purposes to kill in close combat” adding “they aren’t used for hunting.”

Anti-gun crusaders, like Feinstein, are either grossly ignorant, or willfully ignore the facts about so-called “assault rifles”. The net effect is to deliberately mislead you about them. Feinstein herself said in the PBS Newshour interview, “it gets quite technical.”

OK, let’s look at the technical information about these guns. They are not “military weapons”; they look similar, or bear cosmetic resemblance, to military weapons, but they are not used by the military. The AR-15 as sold in the U.S. to civilians is a semi-automatic gun that looks like the military M4A1 carbine rifle or the M-16 battle rifle. They look nearly identical. As former Marine Joshua Boston would tell you, they are not military guns. Military soldiers mock the AR-15 calling it an “M-forgery‘s” a play on “M4” precisely because they are not military guns. They have functional differences. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle which can only fire one bullet per trigger squeeze. The M4A1 is capable of either single shot fire, or burst fire, where several rounds, typically three, are fired with one single trigger squeeze. Some other non-civilian variants that are not technically the M4A1 may be configured for fully automatic fire; this means the weapon continuously fires until the trigger is released or there are no more bullet cartridges left. Changing from single-shot to either burst, or full auto fire is achieved by use of a selector switch. Select fire capability is what technically makes an actual assault rifle what it is. For example, Connecticut – where there is a current state-level assault weapons ban – acknowledges this technical definition in their legal definition.

AR-15’s are not designed for “close quarters combat,” and neither is the military M4A1, which is designed for intermediate range combat with an effective range of 400–600 meters. By contrast, sub-machine guns are designed for shorter range and potentially usable in close quarters combat.

AR-15’s are hunting rifles, depending on what you’re hunting and how the rifle is configured. AR-15’s chambered in the standard .223 (5.56 metric) are used for varmint hunting precisely because of it’s accuracy at a long distance. But AR-15’s have an “upper” and “lower” part of the weapon that can be changed out – even in the field – allowing the weapon to be chambered in larger rounds, including 6.8 and .308. These rounds are used for hog hunting, and .308 may be used for hunting deer or elk.

However, contrary to the political hype, the standard .223 is not an especially dangerous round, and aside from varmints is not useful for hunting. Many states will not allow deer or elk hunting with a .223 for the very reason it is not powerful enough. By contrast, hunting cartridges like 7mm, 8mm, 270WIN, .303, 30-06 fired from bolt-action rifles are vastly more powerful.

Fun fact: AR-15 rifles are used for actual hunting. AR-15’s can be configured to shoot a variety of different bullet cartridges and are used from varmint hunting to hog hunting and dangerous game. For more, check out this article.

So-called “assault rifles” are targeted because they have been used in a few high-profile shootings. They receive inordinate media attention because they look like “military-style” weapons (Note: style – or cosmetic appearance – is the key word). But these guns are not responsible for most gun violence in the U.S.

Rifles, of which so-called “assault rifles” are a subset, accounted for just 2.55% of all homicides in 2011. Mass murder accounts for less than 100 dead out of nearly 13,000 homicides. And not all mass shootings involve so-called “assault weapons”.

The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 19 magazines – mostly 10 round magazines. Neither his handgun, nor the 10 round magazines would be affected by Feinstein’s proposed ban.

Feinstein must mislead us in order to make it seem that so-called “assault weapons” are more dangerous than they really are, made for purposes that they are not, and don’t have the legitimate purposes that they do.

A version of this article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 25, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.

There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn't her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?
Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing — a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American's to turn in their guns — if only she could just get the votes?

PBS Newshour's Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners’ fears of banning all guns.

Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the 'camel's nose under the tent' — that the next thing, you'll be after concealed carry weapons, you'll be after other kinds of gun rights?"

Feinstein: Well that's just not true. It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, 'that dog doesn't hunt.

Ifill: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you go after those other laws?

Feinstein: Because it's not what I've done in the past and it's not what I'm doing right now.

Taken at face value, Feinstein isn't going after all guns. However, at the end of the day, she is a politician; which is to say (magnanimously) that a position taken today may just be convenient, or (unmagnanimously) that politicians are liars. Which is more likely in this case?  Let's look at a previous comment on record.

Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

Some may believe that confiscation could "never happen here;" after all this is America right? But it has happened here in America — in Chicago, as well as illegally in New Orleans following Katrina. Even abroad, there is historical precedent that registration of guns — as in Feinstein's proposed bill — leads to confiscation, even if down the road. Registration followed by confiscation occurred in Nazi Germany, as well as New Zealand, Australia and Canada (it's interesting to note that both New Zealand and Canada eventually gave up with registries, citing cost and ineffectiveness in aiding police).

Confiscation has happened here; it's happened abroad. Feinstein has stated that if she could get the votes, she'd be happy to have all American's turn 'em all in. She says that's not what she's going after now. This doesn't seem to be a credible claim.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication January 26, 2013). 

An Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 26, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 4 comments

Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.

There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn’t her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?

Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing — a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American’s to turn in their guns — if only she could just get the votes?

PBS Newshour‘s Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners’ fears of banning all guns.

Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ — that the next thing, you’ll be after concealed carry weapons, you’ll be after other kinds of gun rights?”

Feinstein: Well that’s just not true. It wasn’t true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, ‘that dog doesn’t hunt.

Ifill: Why shouldn’t it be true? Why wouldn’t you go after those other laws?

Feinstein: Because it’s not what I’ve done in the past and it’s not what I’m doing right now.

Taken at face value, Feinstein isn’t going after all guns. However, at the end of the day, she is a politician; which is to say (magnanimously) that a position taken today may just be convenient, or (unmagnanimously) that politicians are liars. Which is more likely in this case?  Let’s look at a previous comment on record.

Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.

Some may believe that confiscation could “never happen here;” after all this is America right? But it has happened here in America — in Chicago, as well as illegally in New Orleans following Katrina. Even abroad, there is historical precedent that registration of guns — as in Feinstein’s proposed bill — leads to confiscation, even if down the road. Registration followed by confiscation occurred in Nazi Germany, as well as New Zealand, Australia and Canada (it’s noteworthy that both New Zealand and Canada eventually gave up with registries, citing cost and ineffectiveness in aiding police).

Confiscation has happened here; it’s happened abroad. Feinstein has stated that if she could get the votes, she’d be happy to have all American’s turn ’em all in. She says that’s not what she’s going after now. This doesn’t seem to be a credible claim.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban Would Be Unconstitutional

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a bill Thursday to ban so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. 

Feinstein stated on CNN's Pier's Morgan Tonight that, “There's no Second Amendment right to bear every type of weapon that you know of. These [assault weapons] are a certain class of weapons ... I don't believe the Second Amendment covers them.”

Sen. Feinstein is wrong.

She says she believes the Second Amendment wouldn't protect the right of American's to keep so-called “assault weapons," however, Feinstein's bill would face serious constitutional challenge.

The government is empowered to restrict and regulate "dangerous and unusual weapons," like fully automatic machine guns and bazooka's (which it has since the 1934 National Firearms Act), but not weapons “in common use at the time.” This would include so-called “assault rifles.

What the Second Amendment Says:
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Supreme Court Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the landmark case, D.C. vs. Heller, goes into great detail about the historical precedent, legal history leading up to the writing of the Second Amendment (as well as providing legal comparison's in the early state's constitution's, early American law and law pre- & post-Civil War), and the historical context for the words used in the Second Amendment. Let's examine his review:

Individual Right
The Second Amendment is a personal right. Justice Scalia notes, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right" (p.6) . He further says that it is a natural right to self-defense that is “clearly an individual right,having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20).

Dangerous and Unusual Weapons can be Limited
The Court states that the Second Amendment is not unlimited: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" (p.54).

Notably, the Court states that "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be lawfully limited, “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” (p.55). The key word is “unusual;" all weapons are inherently dangerous. Weapons that are unusually dangerous are lawful to limit under the Second Amendment. This is why we can't all own rocket launchers. However, there is more to it than just being unusual.

Common use at the time is protected
Weapons that are in “common use at the time” are protected under the Second Amendment: “The sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time” (p.55). Scalia also states that “modern developments ... cannot change our interpretation of the right” (p.56). This also precludes the sometimes proposed argument that only muskets and single-shot pistols are protected by the Second Amendment; Scalia addresses this directly, calling the suggestion “frivolous,” noting other rights are not interpreted in this manner and stating “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" (p.8).

Popularity and prevalence of use is relevant
The Supreme Court also cites prevalence and popularity as relevant factors, specifically as they relate to handguns, "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid" (p.57-58). Also noting that an entire class of arms may not be banned, “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose" (p.56).

They preempted argument that as long as other classes of arms are not banned, the ban of one class is permissible, “It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed" (p.57). It is clear from the Court's remarks, that it is not permissible to ban an entire class of weapons that are popular and in common in use at the time.

Why is this relevant? Because semi-automatic rifles have been on the U.S. commercial market since 1903 (from Winchester and Remington) and are in broad use among law-abiding citizens for self-defense, target shooting, and sport. They accounted for about 40% of rifle sales in 2010. The AR-15 is the most popular model in America – accounting for 5.5% of all U.S. guns manufactured in 2007 alone. There are millions in circulation. It has been popular since it was created in 1958. The semi-automatic civilian versions of AK-47's have been popular for decades (Kalashnikov invented the rifle in 1947). FN FAL's have been around since the 1950's. Semi-automatic, so-called “assault rifles” are a very popular class of rifle. There are literally millions of them in the various proposed ban of more than 150 named models (AR-15, AK-47, Mini-14, FN FAL, HK-91, AR-10, etc.)

Therefore the Feinstein ban would be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment protects popular classes of arms that are in common use at the time. So-called “assault rifles” fit that description. The fact that gun violence is a problem doesn't justify violating the Constitution. The Court ruled “we are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many ... who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table" (p.64, emphasis added). Feinstein doesn't think that her proposed ban would be unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia has explained in great detail, the Supreme Court rationale in the D.C. vs Heller case shows that she's wrong.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February, 2013). 

Proposed Assault Weapons Ban would violate the Constitution

by Matt MacBradaigh | Feb 11, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 1 comment

Feinstein stated on CNN’s Pier’s Morgan Tonight that, “There’s no Second Amendment right to bear every type of weapon that you know of. These [assault weapons] are a certain class of weapons … I don’t believe the Second Amendment covers them.”

Sen. Feinstein is wrong.

She says she believes the Second Amendment wouldn’t protect the right of American’s to keep so-called “assault weapons,” however, Feinstein’s bill would face serious constitutional challenge.

The government is empowered to restrict and regulate “dangerous and unusual weapons,” like fully automatic machine guns and bazooka’s (which it has since the 1934 National Firearms Act), but not weapons “in common use at the time.” This would include so-called “assault rifles.

What the Second Amendment Says:The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Supreme Court Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the landmark case, D.C. vs. Heller, goes into great detail about the historical precedent, legal history leading up to the writing of the Second Amendment (as well as providing legal comparison’s in the early state’s constitution’s, early American law and law pre- & post-Civil War), and the historical context for the words used in the Second Amendment. Let’s examine his review:

Individual RightThe Second Amendment is a personal right. Justice Scalia notes, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p.6) . He further says that it is a natural right to self-defense that is “clearly an individual right,having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p.20).

Dangerous and Unusual Weapons can be LimitedThe Court states that the Second Amendment is not unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (p.54).

Notably, the Court states that “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be lawfully limited, “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” (p.55). The key word is “unusual;” all weapons are inherently dangerous. Weapons that are unusually dangerous are lawful to limit under the Second Amendment. This is why we can’t all own rocket launchers. However, there is more to it than just being unusual.

Common use at the time is protectedWeapons that are in “common use at the time” are protected under the Second Amendment: “The sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time” (p.55). Scalia also states that “modern developments … cannot change our interpretation of the right” (p.56). This also precludes the sometimes proposed argument that only muskets and single-shot pistols are protected by the Second Amendment; Scalia addresses this directly, calling the suggestion “frivolous,” noting other rights are not interpreted in this manner and stating “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8).

Popularity and prevalence of use is relevantThe Supreme Court also cites prevalence and popularity as relevant factors, specifically as they relate to handguns, “Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid” (p.57-58). Also noting that an entire class of arms may not be banned, “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose” (p.56).

They preempted argument that as long as other classes of arms are not banned, the ban of one class is permissible, “It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed” (p.57). It is clear from the Court’s remarks, that it is not permissible to ban an entire class of weapons that are popular and in common in use at the time.

Why is this relevant? Because semi-automatic rifles have been on the U.S. commercial market since 1903 (from Winchester and Remington) and are in broad use among law-abiding citizens for self-defense, target shooting, and sport. They accounted for about 40% of rifle sales in 2010. The AR-15 is the most popular model in America – accounting for 5.5% of all U.S. guns manufactured in 2007 alone. There are millions in circulation. It has been popular since it was created in 1958. The semi-automatic civilian versions of AK-47’s have been popular for decades (Kalashnikov invented the rifle in 1947). FN FAL’s have been around since the 1950’s. Semi-automatic, so-called “assault rifles” are a very popular class of rifle. There are literally millions of them in the various proposed ban of more than 150 named models (AR-15, AK-47, Mini-14, FN FAL, HK-91, AR-10, etc.)

Therefore the Feinstein ban would be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment protects popular classes of arms that are in common use at the time. So-called “assault rifles” fit that description. The fact that gun violence is a problem doesn’t justify violating the Constitution. The Court ruled “we are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many … who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution … But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64, emphasis added). Feinstein doesn’t think that her proposed ban would be unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia has explained in great detail, the Supreme Court rationale in the D.C. vs Heller case shows that she’s wrong.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Feb 11, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.