Bad Ideas On Gun Control

On March 1st, The Heritage Foundation posted an article about the debate on gun control. The article lists four faulty ideas currently being discussed. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The four ideas:

1) Banning ‘Assault Weapons’

2) Banning ‘High-Capacity Magazines’

3) Background Checks On All Gun Sales

4) Eliminating Immunity for Gun Manufacturers

Even if they were to pass constitutional muster, none of these are good ideas.

In 2004, the Updated Assessment of the Federal AssaultWeapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 was released. The purpose of this report was to study the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban that Congress had passed in 1994.

The article at Heritage notes the conclusions of that study:

Even assuming that every criminal turned in his or her “assault weapon” and never obtained a different type of firearm to commit the same crimes in the future, there would be likely be no noticeable drop in gun-related crime as a result of this policy.

That is, in fact, exactly what the official study of the original federal assault-weapons ban found in 2004.

The article notes the current liability laws regarding gun manufacturers:

It’s important first to understand what the law currently is with respect to gun manufacturers and immunity.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers (as well as sellers and distributors) are still liable for selling defective products, for failing to abide by numerous federal regulations regarding safety, sales, and records, for false advertising, and for a wide array of other widely recognized tort claims.

The law only protects them from lawsuits claiming that they are liable whenever a third party criminally misuses a firearm that the company manufactured and sold in compliance with the law.

To hold a manufacturer liable for the misuse of their product is ridiculous. Are the manufacturers protected if they put a warning label on their guns that says “Not intended to be used to shoot people”?

The Founding Fathers put The Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights for a reason. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of government. The Second Amendment is part of that limitation–it is intended to limit the power of government–not the power of the people. Losing our Second Amendment rights would be a huge step toward government tyranny.

.

Creating A Government That Hasn’t Read The Constitution

Yesterday Sara Carter reported the following:

“We are actually the only campaign with a plan…that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war,” Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, recently nominated as Joe Biden’s incoming deputy chief of staff, says in the video.

The Biden-Harris transition team announced Tuesday, that O’Malley Dillon will join incoming administration as a deputy chief of staff.

At the time of recording this video, O’Malley Dillon was working for Beto O’Rourke’s 2020 campaign. She estimated that the mandatory buyback would affect “15 or 16 million” guns.

“An assault weapon ban is very, very important, and we need to have it. But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future. It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there.”

The obvious questions here is who determines what is an assault rifle. Some of the plans to force Americans to give up their guns include registering those guns and taxing the owners at a high rate. Other plans include allowing liability lawsuits against the companies that manufacture guns, eventually drying up the supply. One of the hallmarks of a potential Biden administration is the total disregard for the God-given rights of Americans enshrined in the Constitution.

Part Of The Democrat Party Platform

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Kamala Harris’ views on guns.

The article reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has done something unprecedented with his pick of Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) as his running mate: put a candidate on the presidential ticket who publicly supports gun confiscation.

During her failed primary campaign, Harris was one of only a handful of candidates to explicitly advocate for the confiscation of what she estimated to be tens of millions of legally owned firearms.

“We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. “It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

First of all, those who call for the ban on assault weapons never quite define what an assault weapon is. In the past, some Congressmen have added guns to that list simply because they were ‘scary-looking.’ Second of all, there is a reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. It seems to me that one of the indications of a tyrannical government might be that they want to take your guns away. The Second Amendment is there to secure the rights of the First Amendment.

The article reports:

“During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver,” Oliva (Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation) told the Free Beacon. “Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.”

Oliva called the pick a danger to gun owners.

“Joe Biden’s selection of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate makes this ticket the most serious threat to American Second Amendment rights ever faced in a presidential election,” he said.

Gun-control groups, on the other hand, cheered Biden’s decision to name Harris his vice-presidential nominee. Giffords, the gun-control group headed by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, emphasized Harris’s support for expanding background checks to private sales in a celebratory email to its donors and didn’t mention her support for confiscation.

“Joe Biden just announced his pick for Vice President and we are so thrilled to have Senator Kamala Harris join the fight to defeat Trump in November,” the group said in an email to supporters. “Like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is a gun safety champion with a proven record of fighting the NRA and standing up for common sense. They will work tirelessly together to pass universal background checks and make every community safer from gun violence.”

Gun violence will not stop when you take guns away from law-abiding gun owners; it will only stop when you take guns away from criminals. We already have laws that do that. Those laws don’t work because criminals do not obey laws.Taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners will not cause criminals to give up their guns–it will simply result in more unarmed victims of those criminals (or a tyrannical government that cannot be stopped). Neither is a positive step forward.