Unity

As seen in Thunder Roads Louisiana June 2017 Vol. 14 – Issue 6.

The recent NRA-ILA Leadership Forum was rather underwhelming. The opportunity was given to America, by Americans during the election, to start fresh and start tearing down the old firearms controls. These controls are set forth in Federal law, presidential sanctions on foreign countries, and in BATFE determinations. The United States firearms community has always been divided, just other social issues divides us, but there is hope that the division would be set aside for unity.

November was advertised as a home-run for the Second Amendment. However, there has not been any action. The Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 367) sits dead in committee, and has since early February. There is still no hope of seeing import restrictions (so far), from the Clinton and Obama years, on China and the Russian Federation removed. The wins for the Second have been for the long-game, as Chris Cox mentioned: the postings of Gorsuch, Sessions and Zinke. Conversely, there is no talk by politicians on repealing legislation, through the legislature. It can be seen with the Hearing Protection Act, as an immediate example.

To this day, I have witnessed every bit of the “Four Types of Firearms Owners”, which MrColionNoir spoke of, back in late 2015. He talked about four different classes of firearms owners: the Hunter, the Tactician, the Competition Shooter, and the Collector. The Hunter focuses on hunting with bolt-, break- or limited-capacity semi-automatics. The Tactician focuses on SHTF scenarios and zombie apocalypse survivalism. The Competition guy tends to be involved in 3-Gun and complains whenever their local range has regulations on speed shooting. The Collector is focused on collecting firearms because of the historical aspects and they love hunting for deals.

There are two huge detractors to focus on, out of these four groups. The Hunters forget that, like in some European countries, the firearms control groups eventually came after bolt-actions after they regulated “military”-grade firearms. The biggest offenders are the Collectors, in my mind, and this is when it comes to civilian transferable machine-guns. Due to the limited pool of registered MGs with the ATF before May 1968, the costs of these firearms continue to climb every year. Collectors make no effort to help repeal the Hughes Amendment, change 922(o) ruling, or repeal the National Firearms Act. The Left inevitably come after later, in the early 1990s…? The dreaded semi-automatic “assault weapons”.

What most firearms owners forget, regardless of which category that they fall into, is that we are all being targeted. Everything we own is being targeted. The history of the National Firearms Act proves that. The NFA, from 1934, had originally also included the registration of handguns. The arbitrary reasoning was because of concealability. What happens when someone from the Left-wing decides that there isn’t such a thing as a “hunting” rifle, but that all bolt-actions are “sniper” rifles? The theoretical reason for control being that you could assassinate a high-ranking politician. We have seen a similar comparison when it comes to the control of non-firearms – the accessories – notably suppressors.

For a decade, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (Sec. 110101) controlled the sale of firearms with certain “assault”-features and magazines with the capacity of more than 10-rounds. Other examples include: barrel lengths, collapsible or folding stocks, pistol grips, and handguards. These are all simple parts. Presently, there are people that believe these items need to be restricted or outright banned.

We need to put our intolerance to the side, so that progress can be made towards resetting the balance of power in favor of a proper Constitutional Republic. Stop wondering why the Left pursues restrictions on standard-capacity magazines or semi-automatic AR-15s when you won’t help roll back laws on suppressors and fully-automatic weapons. It should not matter whether you agree with the ownership of those items; it’s something for you to decide for yourself exclusively. Ultimately, the decision should be yours to make and not the U.S. Government’s. It is not their business, or yours, what your neighbor chooses to own for their personal benefits. That is the biggest reason why I support a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, NFA ’34 (Chapter-53, Tax Code), GCA ’86, among other restricting laws, and sanctions.

These reasons are why you should also muster support for the repeal of those regulations. It is imperative that we band together before the Left decides that the first episode of the Assault Weapons Ban didn’t encompass enough “dangerous” firearms. Or, they decide to expand upon what should be registered under the National Firearms Act. I would certainly hate to see a proposal for adding firearms with “military calibers” to the NFA registry. You know how the Left likes to point out how well some European and South American countries are doing with that one; the “revolution suppression” method, as it is sometimes referred to.

Magazines were stamped with this roll-mark during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

The post-2004 Assault Weapons Ban sunset status quo has kept Americans content, but also extremely apathetic to further attempts at firearms controls. If you look back on history, you will find that firearms controllers are never happy with the status quo, even when it happens to be in their favor. The Assault Weapons Ban wasn’t good enough in some minds, during the decade that it was in place. We have witnessed Sen. Dianne Feinstein wish to expand upon updated AWB proposals, which she has tried and failed to get voted into place.

The division within the pro-firearms community must cease and unity is a must. The status quo will never be enough for the Left, even if all you own is your child’s .22 bolt-action Cricket.

If you would like to see more firearms related material, then visit us on Facebook.

Questions or comments? Email thisistheline3@gmail.com.