When They Come for Your Guns
An unsettling sign from the Obama Administration this week in the form of statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder. It seems that the specter of the assault rifle ban may be coming round again.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.
Even during the primary, when you would expect Democratic candidates to be running hard to the left, I seem to recall Obama falling all over himself to assure people that nobody was coming to take their guns away and speaking of his respect for hunters. Admittedly, he didn’t go quite as far as Hillary “Annie Oakley” Clinton and her tales of a backwoods upbringing hunting ducks, but message seemed pretty clear at the time.
I’m not really on the extreme end of the pro-2nd amendment crowd. I draw a distinction between “arms” and “weapons of war.” This is one area where I believe the advances of technology have outstripped the vision of the founders. I don’t believe that everyone has a right to a tank, a mortar, a cannon or a water-cooled, belt-fed .50 caliber machine gun. But I become uncomfortable whenever we get around to trying to define that gray line where “guns” end and “weapons of war” begin. Bazookas are not terribly practical for either hunting or home defense, but a bolt action 30:06 and a nine mm. handgun fill the bill nicely. What about the so-called assault rifles? It pushes the line pretty close to “coming for your guns” territory and I’ve really never been able to get behind the whole clip size argument either.
I’ll wait to hear from President Obama himself on this one, but Holder’s words put my teeth on edge. After the Heller decision I thought we might be reaching a nice point of stability in the gun control debate. I’d hate to see the Obama Administration rip that wound open anew.
27 Responses to “When They Come for Your Guns”
Perhaps I just don't know enough about guns. Please explain what falls under the definition of “assault rifle” and why anyone would need one for private use. AFAIK, they are not used for hunting but rather primarily used by drug traffickers and other criminals.
I'm torn on this one. In my mind, I agree that the assault weapons ban was a joke. I sometimes shoot my father-in-law's AK47 just for fun and he showed me the absurd difference between the two clip sizes. I also support conceal-carry laws as long as the state ensures that permit holders are absolutely squeaky clean and stable.
On the other hand, I really don't care. I don't see this as some grave Constitutional right in crisis. I don't view the slippery slope argument as all that serious in this context. And I think the pro-gun side has made fools of itself by responding to every mass murder with the absurd claim that an armed populace would have somehow stopped the carnage. In my church our members disarmed a mass murderer with their bare hands after he killed “only” two people. If we were all packing heat, the carnage may have been more what with the kids' crying room just over the shoulder of the gunman (a missed shot could have killed somebody there).
It's no surprise that the sinister “assault rifle” boogey-man-based gun-grabbing efforts may be revived. At the same time, what's in the news, too, is the effort of someone associated with Barack Obama's past political history in Illinois, joining the other alien, alienating left-Dems in the House who are not only failing to show self-control and self-restraint, but trashing the Constitution and Americans of higher intelligence and morality and even something so basic as development. Rush wants to begin registration and engage in handgun control.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h…
All that's missing is another early revival, of another pet project, the Dems' 10,000% (ten thousand per cent) tax on ammunition to make it inaccessible, a “refined” version of gun control. That, and giving “stimulus” money to anti-American groups to produce more Million Moron and Constitution Trasher Marches on cue.
The remarkably and even shockingly early un-American effort by left-Dems, including again as we see here in the House, already has started, and taints Obama, who had better correct this outrageousness, promptly, strongly if he's worth anything.
“Please explain what falls under the definition of “assault rifle” and why anyone would need one for private use.“
You've already identified one of the problems. There has yet to be a coherent definition of assault rifles. Some versions only targeted fully automatic, rotary feed monsters which have no place anywhere, really, except mounted on a jeep in the field of battle. The definition under the Clinton plan, unfortunately, extended to models of similar physical shape but were semi-automatic… banned because they had the “potential to be illegally modified for full automatic use” though they lacked any high capacity clip ability.
Why would anyone need one? If it's the latter as described above, why does anyone “need” any weapon? Different people have different reasons. If there were some solid, generally accepted definition of what would qualify as an assault rifle, we might be able to have a discussion on this. I saw a demonstration once of a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle which had been modified for full automatic firing. Of course, you destroy the mechanism after one long burst, but it did fire. The point is, some of the caveats on that ban were just ludicrous and obviously written by people who've never handled or fired a weapon in their lives.
Thanks Jazz! I know how to to use a handgun (my ex had one) but that is the limit of my knowledge about guns. I am not knee-jerk for or against them.
I agree with most of the comments….
In the mean time, I just came across two helpful articles on 2008 taxes.
http://www.recessioninfocenter.com/2008_tax_tip…
http://www.recessioninfocenter.com/Taxes_in_rec…
Well, as I recall during the campaign Obama said that he thought surely the pro-gunners and anti-gunners (my terms, not his) could surely see the need to prevent assault rifles on the streets….
Now anyone who is pro-gun is already convinced that Obama is going to take away their guns… In fact I know pro-gunners who used Obama's election as an excuse to go out and buy more guns (and rifles, but not military assault type weapons).
I think my view is similar to Obama's: the right for people to bear arms but the need to prevent automatic military type weapons from falling into the wrong hands….
As you noted, Jazz, the problem is a lack of what types of assault guns Obama wants to ban. So while now is the time to start keeping an eye on Holder's statement's and influencing which weapons will be permitted and which banned, it is too early for people to be alarmist.
WIth Bush you pretty much knew what you were going to get when rumors started circulating about policy changes…. Obama is a diferent story because he does want to be reasonable about his policies and involve others' in the decision process. In other words Obama doesn't have an agenda to ban X, Y and Z, but permit A, B and C. I think Obama wants to hear the arguments from both sides and decide which weapons should not be in wide circulation.
Will some types of guns be banned? Yes. Will people be unhappy and claim that Obama is taking away their constitutional rights? Yes. And probably a whole lot of people in Alaska who use assualt weapons to run down animals to the point of death in helicopters and then shoot them from the air.
Frankly, I really, really, REALLY hope that the Democratic leadership does not make this an issue. As much as I agree with the position that gun rights should be increased and all those water-headed idiots at the NRA should be lined up and shot (how ironic a statement is that?), there are times to push an issue, and times to let them lie.
We have so many other problems in this country right now that deserve so much more attention. Push-button issues like gun rights or abortion will only distract from those problems, and rile up the lowbrow knee-jerk issue voters on the right, and prevent any real work from getting done. (Sort of like how Clinton nixed his administration right out of the gate with the gays in the military issue). So, let the issue of gun control lie fallow for now, and hopefully the Obama administration will keep their eyes on more pressing issues.
I am of the other persuasion than mlradio on the gun issue, but I don't understand why this is being brought up either (assuming it really is, you can never be sure on the internet these days) since not only is the so-called assault weapon ban just a cosmetic sop to the left, but it is a distracting issue that will do no good for the country. I guess this makes me a low-brow knee-jerk issue voter, but some common sense has to prevail. This time it is the Democrats that have to show it.
The last several “bans” have not done anything except increase the value of the weapons that are always grandfathered in and mostly they limited the magazine capacity and took off the bayonet lug. Most of the weapons affected by the bans were not of the same type used in robbery or murder cases since they are fairly hard to conceal. The total amount of work and grief on both sides could be more profitably used to figure out how to get us out of a real mess in the economy instead of trying to score points.
Oh, and by the way, you can own a belt fed machine gun if you are willing to pay the price and have a more thorough background check than several of President Obama's appointees. Federal law allows it and if you live in one of several states , you can even possess and shoot it.
Excellent Jazz – we cannot relax our vigilance for even a week. They will keep coming.
I grew up around guns and have hunted most of my life as well. Naturally I believe the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to own guns, BUT we all know that doesnt' mean ANY kind of gun. For many years I ownded a WWII era .30 M1Carbine, which was fun to shoot and a gem of engineering as well, but I can't think of any practical use for it, beyond shooting people – which of course was it's intended purpose. To my way of thinking, that gun is very close to where the “line” ought to be. If the more “reactive” elements of the gun community can calm down long enough to have a grownup discussion about the obviously necessary gray area, and if the more reactive elements among the anti-gun crowd would educate themselves a little better, then maybe we could come to some common agreement. Paranoid rants about Obama coming for your guns are probably inevitable, but are counterproductive.
I don't know if you all have see this yet…
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
I think things are going to be 'safe' for gun-enthusiasts for now. My guess is that President Obama and Congress are a bit more concerned with the pressing economic issues that our nation faces.
My 0.02
Really? And where in the 2nd amendment does it say that Americans have a right to only certain kind of guns?
Democrats complained constantly about the administration's abuse of civil liberties and disregard for the Constitution back when Bush was president (an argument with which I whole-heartedly agree with them). But if the Obama Administration reinstates the assault weapon ban and Democrats go along with it, Democrats will show themselves to utter hypocrites on the issue of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.
So…nic doesn't think there should be any limits on possessing any kind of weapon?
I think that the entire Administration and Congressional Leadership would LOVE to see a renewed AWB. Nancy Pelosi is backing down not because of “pressing economic issues”, but rather because she is aware of the enormous amounts of fecal matter that would strike the air circulation device when this DOES come up.
And as to drawing an “obvious line” this side of guns that are for “killing people”, I can think of several TEOTWAWKI scenarios that would call for being WELL armed. My favorite is Electromagnetic Pulse weapons (EMP) – possible in the short run, likely in the mid run, and near certain in the long run.
Here's the short version, from Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy, who stays up nights worring about this stuff:
http://www.swissamerica.com/article.php?=SID&ar…
Here's the long version, from Yer Own Government, 2008 (lo-o-o-ng pdf)
http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Com…
I feel anyone who is not well armed (with guns that are for “killing people”) is unlikely to survive such a scenario, as they will be quickly over-run by predators. And that's just ONE of the reasons to have the dreaded “assault weapons”.
And mhlradio, this sort of self-protective instinct is what MANY out of the millions of us water-headed idiot NRA members think.
“After the Heller decision I thought we might be reaching a nice point of stability in the gun control debate”
Jazz, you're a smart guy. How could you have thought that? I knew there was no stability the instant Adrian Fenty spoke on the steps of the Court, 10 minutes after the decision. And two weeks later, DC rewrote its gun laws in a way which specifically proffered the middle finger to the Heller Decision. Then recently, your own beloved Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does NOT incorporate to the states. It seems to me that at NO point was stability even vaguely inferred.
Oh, ye of too much faith…
Looks like the slope-browed NRA mouth-breathers are safe for now: Pelosi Throws Cold Water on Assault Weapons Ban. While I very strongly dislike Pelosi, I'm relieved to see she has at least the basic self instinct to avoid touching this particular third rail.
To nicrivera and oldeeyore: Either you think there is a line somewhere, or you can't be taken seriously. If you do think there is a line, then where (exactly) do you think it should be???
I can own any gun? When do I get my backyard howitzer? (The freaking mocking birds are driving me nuts.) It's just a big gun, amirite?
Point is, of course there is a common sense line to be drawn. In almost any self defense situation I can think of (home invasion, etc.) I'd be perfectly happy to have a shotgun or handgun at my disposal. They'd probably be a lot more effective than an AK-47, unless the AK has a bayonet attached. I've field stripped and fired everything from an M-16 to a .22 revolver, so don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the sale and ownership of personal weapons, whether for defense, sport or collecting. While I personally disagree that the 2nd Amendment's “well regulated militia” phrase means anyone can own anything, there's settled law now that must be dealt with reasonably. The question to me is, as I believe Jazz points to above, how do we define reasonable limits?
I also agree with those who note that we have much bigger problems to worry about right now, and really don't need yet another tertiary distraction from the primary issues of this moment in time.
nic said, “…if the Obama Administration reinstates the assault weapon ban and Democrats go along with it, Democrats will show themselves to utter hypocrites on the issue of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.”
Well I'd like to own that mother of all assault weapons- a nice nuclear bomb. Doesn't even have to be very big. Yet the government is infringing on my liberties and constitutional rights and won't let me own one.
Don't get me wrong… I'm not going to do anything with it… I just want it for bragging rights. How many people do you know who have a nuke sitting in their den?
If someday I fall on hard times and need to sell it I know I can get a pretty penny for it…. I don't care who I would sell it to…. even foreigners with funny accents and funnier clothes. As long as they pay me good money. I don't care what they do with it and you know what? It's not my problem once I sell it.
“Then recently, your own beloved Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does NOT incorporate to the states.“
Actually, I'm too lazy to go look it up right now, eeyore, but I published a long piece on that at the time. That's the incorporation doctrine, which unfortunately does not include the 2nd amendment under the “fundamental rights” which the states are forced to incorporate. I was referring to a point of stability on the federal level. Of course, that's pretty much useless and cold comfort if you live in a state which says you can't have a slingshot.
This issue is clearly a moot point now that Senator Reid agrees with Speaker Pelosi. The Heller decision changed the tenor of this argument the way Roe did with abortion. While there will no doubt be plenty of tests of the limits of what is clearly a civil right (individual ownership of a firearm for protection), a total ban on guns is no longer on the table.
Obama never said during the campaign that he wanted a total ban on guns. And I'm happy to see that the Dem leadership in Congress does not want one either. But there are certain weapons that should be curtailed.
Personally, I didn't really care much whether an otherwise law-abiding person owns an assault weapon, a bazooka, or even a tank (since these weapons can all be operating within the confines of one's private property. I draw the line, however, on weapons whose destructive force cannot be confined to own's private property. For that I reason, I would be adamantly against allowing people to own nuclear bombs or weaponized biologic agents.
However, it's not what I think should be outlawed or what you think should be allowed. It's about what the Second Amendment says in plain English. We can all debate until we're blue in the face as to whether the “arms” in the right to keep and bear arms refers to things such as bazookas or tanks. But it clearly refers to guns, and there is no caviot in the Second Amendment permitting congress to ban certain types of guns and having others remain legal.
We can all disagree with certain parts of the Constitution. But if you don't like what it says, the honest response would be to amend the Constitution, not simply disregard it and enact plainly unconstitutional laws (such as the assault weapons ban).
nicrivera: “It's about what the Second Amendment says in plain English. We can all debate until we're blue in the face as to whether the “arms” in the right to keep and bear arms refers to things such as bazookas or tanks.”
Well then I think the answer is simple. If we're going to be conservative and not overstep the bounds of the Constitution then clearly we should only allow the ownership of those types of guns that were in existence when the Constitution was written…. Those were the only types of weapons the founding fathers contemplated. If there were bazookas and tanks then the Constitution might be different. Or perhaps not… and nuclear weapons may or may not have been restricted….. Anything else is just a pure guess. Personally I think more arms should be allowed private ownership then just those types that were in existence a couple hundred years ago….
Handgun Control…
An unsettling sign from the Obama Administration this week in the form of statements made by Attorne [...]…
Did you know how they determined what an assault rifle was. Diane Feinstein thought that those “black rifles” looked very evil and said that those should be banned. She did not even know what they were but they :”looked evil” so they were banned. They are semi- automatic. which means you have to pull the trigger to make them go bang each and every time. Not an automatic weapon. Those are for the police and the military. The irony is that Diane Feinstein along with Schumer (my senator) both have concealed carry permits. I can't get one in NYC but the elite can and do. I guess my life is not worth as much as theirs is . Well to me that simply isn't true. You see they know what's good for me and I shouldn't have the right to self defense outside of my four walls.