Trump’s Texas Deal Dilemma
Trump Declares Victory in Iran War
You're Going to Laugh at This Reuters Piece About Operation Epic Fury
The Negotiations to Reopen the Department of Homeland Security Are NOT Going Well
Kid Whose Family Was Nearly Wiped Out by Unhinged Trans Shooter Just Had...
Here's What an Israeli Pilot Said to His American Counterpart Before a Bombing...
Women Do Not Have to Compromise on Trans Rights
UK Schools Warned Students' Drawings Could Be 'Blasphemous.' Take a Guess Why.
Mother of the Virginia Woman Murdered by a Violent Criminal Illegal Alien Speaks...
Chicago Teachers' Union Is All About Activism, Not Education
CNN Actually Made Abby Phillip Apologize On-Air for Lying About the Attempted ISIS-Inspire...
Allegheny County Ends Cooperation With ICE, but One Councilman Wanted to Go Further
No Comparison: Prophet vs. King
President Trump Responds to the Threat of Iranian Sleeper Cells
Democrats’ Latest Sacrificial Pawns
Tipsheet
Premium

Anti-Gun Democrat Introduces Terrible Gun Ban Bill

Anti-Gun Democrat Introduces Terrible Gun Ban Bill
AP Photo/Michael Conroy

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban is legislation the left has been trying to bring back the minute it sunset in 2004. We know that the law didn't actually do anything to curb gun violence, and multiple studies back that up, but they still want it.

Well, at least they did. Now, they've got a new demand, and it's even more insane.

See, the old assault weapon ban determined what was acceptable and what wasn't by using what many of us called "evil features." If your rifle had too many, it was an "assault weapon." If it didn't, you were good to go. 

It was hilarious, in a way, because a bayonet lug and a collapsible stock really didn't change the gun in any way.

Now, what anti-gunners want goes after the operating system of these weapons directly:

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona, has introduced legislation he says will save lives and protect communities from gun violence while protecting Americans’ constitutional right to own a firearm.

Gun rights groups said the legislative proposal is clearly unconstitutional.

The GOSAFE Act would regulate the sale, transfer and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by establishing a list of prohibited firearms and prevent the unlawful modification of permissible firearms.

Moreover, Kelly wants to mandate that future gas-operated designs are approved before they are manufactured. Unlawful firearm self-assembly and manufacturing would be prevented under his bill. Machinegun conversion devices would be prohibited.

High-capacity ammunition devices would also be limited under the GOSAFE Act.

Referring to himself as a gun owner, combat veteran and husband of a gun violence survivor, Kelly said that he has first-hand knowledge about the damage weapons such as these cause when in the wrong hands. Kelly's wife is former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who was shot in the head during an assassination attempt in 2011.

Kelly might own a gun, but he's not what anyone would call a gun owner.

Instead, he's a vocal opponent of the right to keep and bear arms, who is introducing this measure as a middle finger to anyone who values their gun rights.

To be clear, the gas-operated semi-automatic ban would ban pretty much every single so-called "assault weapon" on the market. While there are direct blowback semi-auto rifles out there, like the Ruger 10/22, most of them are not what someone might think of as good for home defense or defending their nation from some kind of threat.

And that is a problem.

See, Kelly may like to refer to himself with a lot of terms that he thinks will make him sound like one of the good guys, but he's not, especially as he's saying he has first-hand knowledge about the "damage weapons such as these cause," while ignoring the fact that Gabby Giffords was shot with a Glock 19, which is a recoil-operated firearm that would remain unaffected by this law.

This isn't the first time the GOSAFER Act was filed. It went nowhere last time, and it's even less likely to pass this time around.

Even if it did, it's unlikely it would survive any rational legal challenge after the Bruen decision. No matter whether they target "evil features" or the way the rifle functions, one's going to be hard-pressed to find an analog to a law from the time of the nation's founding that would support any kind of firearm ban.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement