3 Facts Gun Grabbers Forgot When Drafting the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Posted: Nov 09, 2017 7:30 PM

Every so often a ridiculous gun bill is introduced. Most of us gun rights activists roll our eyes and sigh. Gun control advocates who write these pieces of legislation know absolutely nothing about firearms yet they’re trying to tell us what kind of guns we should and should not own, what kind of attachments are acceptable and how many rounds are sufficient.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), along with her clan of Democratic cohorts, on Wednesday introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 as a means of addressing mass shootings.

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004,” Feinstein said in a statement. “Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.”

Of course, there are some problems with the proposed ban:

3.  The potential for Supreme Court action.

The most troubling aspect of this piece of legislation: the number of very specific gun makes and models that are listed. Two hundred and five to be matter-of-fact.

If this piece of legislation were to pass — which is very, very unlikely — firearms manufacturers could have a class action lawsuit on their hands. Because the Assault Weapons Ban bill lists specific makes and models, gun manufacturers could make the argument that their individual products are being targeted.

“This could be a First Amendment case because, after all, this could limit someone’s expression of free speech,” Second Amendment expert and Constitutional lawyer Dave Hardy told Townhall.

According to Hardy, if this bill were to pass, gun manufacturers could sidestep the legislation because individual makes and models are listed.

“Anyone can make a product that resembles an AR-15 and stamp it an AR-16,” Hardy said.

In other words, firearms manufacturers could produce the same product and completely rename it and they would be well within their legal rights.

2.  The lack of enforcement.

One of the bill’s main goals is to limit “high capacity magazines,” which holds more than 10 rounds.

That brings me to this question: how would the federal government enforce this? Would they send local police departments in to do a search of every gun owner’s property? Since we don’t register our magazines and no database exists to track them, how does the government know if I own a high capacity magazine?

1.  Meeting the demand elsewhere.

While it sounds great on paper to limit what kind of firearms the average person owns as a means of ending mass shootings, there’s just one big problem: when there’s a demand, there’s a market.

If people want to carry out a mass shooting, they’re going to do whatever they deem necessary in order to make their vision become a reality. One of the most common ways to do that is to utilize 3D printers. People have been caught printing lower receivers for AR-15s, as well as magazines, bump-fire stocks and grenade launchers.

Although gun control advocates are quick to tout their position’s popularity amongst the average American, they often forget they lack the votes that would be needed for a gun control bill to pass Congress."

“This is an attempt to gain publicity because of the Vegas and Texas church shootings,” Hardy said. “But they’re [gun control advocates] are having more problems pushing this bill because the guy who shot down the [Texas] shooter used an AR-style rifle.”


It’s obvious that this piece of legislation was written by a group of people who flipped through a gun magazine and picked out pictures of the scariest looking guns. How many of these senators have seen these firearms in person, let alone shot a gun?

Just remember: you and I are supposed to defend our own life while our legislators in Washington sit back and have armed security guards handle their safety.