As seen in Thunder Roads LA-MS May 2018 Vol. 14 – Issue 5.
Amid the chants of “Traitor!”, Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) signed expansive firearms controls into Vermont law; which has ranked in the top-ten best pro-firearms states in most polls since 2010. Scott signed two control bills into law. S.55 covers a raise of age to all firearms at 21-years unless a hunting license is presented, a hard limit to 10- and 15-rounds for long-gun and handgun magazine capacities, bans all non-family and non-reported private sales, and bans bump-stocks. S.221 covers “extreme risk protection orders”.
The implications of the former are glaringly obvious. The latter holds hopes and false promises. I view these “red flag” stop-gaps being potentially abused as similarly as messy divorces can be. This, despite the included criminal penalties to counter false reporting. This is merely lip-service and the “penalties” are hilarious, at best. There is not enough compensation for a wrongly accused party, the penalties are likely mirrored across equivalent laws elsewhere, and I dare say, cases will never be properly pursued.
In the news, multiple agencies have run stories calling for the full repeal of the Second Amendment. While Sen. Feinstein made a statement outlining doubt of such an action occurring, the calls for repeal have not gone unnoticed. Not with John Paul Stevens running his mouth in the New York Post or the NAACP president, for that matter, either having not done his proper research on Australia or outright lying that “there has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since 1996.” And, additionally, using the phrase “mass shooting” is ambiguous because the term is modified from the FBI’s definition of “mass murder”. Ambiguous because the news outlets and control groups modify the numbers at any given moment or do not even mention the FBI’s parameters at all.
Citigroup started the next slippery-slope by ceasing business with any FFL, firearms manufacturer or accessory company who couldn’t meet any of three conditions that potentially applied to them. All sales require mandatory background checks and all purchases to 21-year olds only, and no “high-capacity” magazines. Bank of America won’t lend to manufacturers of “assault weapons”. The latter’s vice chairman went on record with Bloomberg, stating: “It’s our intention not to finance these military-style firearms for civilian use.” The banks believe the Left’s rhetoric that there are parties, other than the perpetrators, who are responsible for shootings. I’m happy to say that a number of Congress members have requested that the General Services Administration (GSA) suspend the Citibank agreement for SmartPay which was worth $700-billion.
Slide Fire Solutions, Inc. is shutting their doors prior to the Attorney General’s final determination of how “bump stocks” are to be categorized. They will either be banned entirely, or they won’t. The reason being is due to amending the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act. If the AG decides to go forth with a definition change, it will mean that all variations of the “bump stock” will be classified as post-Hughes “machine-gun modifications”. There will be no grandfathering. Retaining any “bump stocks” will mean violating the NFA ’34 and Hughes Amendment (FOPA ’86) and, as the text from the Office of Public Affairs states: “current possessors of bump-stock-type devices would be required to surrender, destroy, or otherwise render the devices permanently inoperable.”
Bump-fire stocks were approved of twice by the BATFE, and both times while the agency was under the Obama Administration, and the ATF evaluator-in-question had to further explain why they weren’t modifications which allowed for a mechanically modified automatic firing mode. This is the second letter, after President Obama suggested a ban after the initial allowance. The quote goes, and is in direct relation to frames or receivers;
“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.”
It is extremely disconcerting to see this level of control attempted to be enforced from so many different camps. It also proves that there are no qualms about being hostile to the pro-Second Amendment entities and customers when Congress won’t act. Removal by majority constituency isn’t something that Congress wants. The Democrats ramble on about the “success” of the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994, but don’t remember what it cost them in the House.
They contemplate controls instead of looking back on history. Instead of, for instance, contemplating a quote from Chief Justice John Marshall about the Constitution, while determining Marbury v. Madison (1803):
“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
But, at what point does it become the duty of the law-abiding People to ignore all violations of the Constitution?
There shall be no underground. There is nothing to hide.
If you would like to see more firearms related material, then visit us on Facebook.
Questions or comments? Email firstname.lastname@example.org.