(no subject)

[drewkitty]

From change.gov "Urban Policy"

>>• Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

In other words, create that national gun registry which is the first step to confiscation. Also gift the rest of the country with the
California ability of peace officers and dispatchers to look up whether you own a firearm or not.

>> Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Note "common sense" to disguise the fact that these are new restrictions and laws.

>> They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

Again, the "gun show loophole" is to require that all firearms transactions be tracked by the government, another technique for confiscation

As for childproof guns, why not childproof blowtorches and chainsaws? This is a thin excuse for banning as many firearms as possible..

>> They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

It was allowed to expire because it didn't have any effect on crime. So why resurrect the corpse?

Don't be fooled by platitudes. This is a laundry list of the gun ban movement, which has little to do with urban policy and everything to do with further erosion of your 2nd Amendment rights.

Comments

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

As a soldier, you appreciate the fact that the dreaded assault weapon is nothing more than an ordinary rifle wearing black plastic. The AK is inferior to the M1 in almost every respect.

>> And I have yet to hear one good damn reason why a private citizen *needs* an AK-47.

Why should the AK be banned when the Colt (M-16, etc) variants are lawful? Or why should the AK and Colt be banned when the M1 is legal?

I am not talking about automatic weapons. Many states ban them (including California) and there is heavy regulation by the Federal government and a substantial tax. Then again, David Koresh (of Waco fame) had a Class 1 FFL.

Does the presence or absence of a pistol grip or detachable magazine make that much difference? Even in California where we enjoy an assault weapons ban, I can have an assault rifle with bayonet as long as it has a fixed magazine and no pistol grip. Conversely, I can have an assault rifle with detachable magazine as long as it does not have a pistol grip. Add a pistol grip, and the magazine had better be affixed in a way that requires tools to remove.

The safeguards, both with respect to assault weapons and with handguns, in California are considerable. Other states are much more lax. Little to no effect on crime either way. Is there a pressing reason this needs to be a Federal issue?

As for confiscations, Google "asset forfeiture." It happens, and there is no recourse.

I've read People v. Heller in great detail, and agree with the Court's holding. Many of the state Constitutions are even more explicit: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Heller established a great number of reasons why a private citizen needs a rifle, and why it is a public good to have programs such as ODCMP.

Does the Federal government have the Constitutional right to pass reasonable firearms regulations, including a nationwide registry? Under Heller, certainly. Do I think it's a good idea? No way.

The nation does not need New York City and Chicago style gun laws, where only the politically connected and the criminals have guns.

Thanks for commenting.