The good news is, the requirement to register semi-automatics and pay a transfer tax is no longer part of Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “assault weapons” ban, a bill that includes in its title the ominous purpose “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.”
At this writing, over one week after she referred it to committee, the bill has still not been posted on the Library of Congress THOMAS online legislative database, although I have posted at my website a draft copy received from a trusted legal source. What stands out, probably because most of the bill is occupied by a list of what her nibs will and will not allow us to own, is that she’s employing a classic “divide and conquer” strategy by exempting so-called “sporting arms.” She’s counting on that keeping enough sport shooters out of the fray, at least those who don’t realize their scoped deer rifles will be next up for demonization simply by manipulating the public discourse into one about “sniper rifles.”
That Feinstein’s bill will even get out of committee is something of a disappointment, but Harry Reid has guaranteed her it will get a floor vote, possibly, according to a Reuters report, as an amendment to “a broader package to curb gun violence.”
The hypocrisy of even having this discussion in the first place could not be made more evident than by a solicitation from the Department of Homeland Security for 7,000 select-fire rifles it calls “personal defense weapons” in the procurement specs. This ought to also expose the deception being perpetrated by labeling standard “personal defense capacity” magazines “high capacity clips,” or it would if we only had a non-agenda driven mass media.
Still, this may be much ado about nothing, perhaps a useful glimpse into the goals of the anti-gunners, but not a genuine clear and present danger, as politically-savvy odds makers assess chances of Feinstein’s bill passing between “slim” and “none.” Still, others on the watch for more nuanced maneuverings caution it may provide cover to make concessions on a due-process-violating mental health blanket dragnet, or on ending private sales at gun shows, yet still allow a claim of “victory” for turning back the larger threat of a gun ban.
Informed gun owners need to keep the potential for that in mind, and insist the only acceptable position from lobbying leaders, and the politicians they would have us support, is that we will not be scapegoated. No concessions are acceptable, and simple observation tells us the only rational response to mass shootings is to end fraudulent “gun free zones.”
Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.
By David Codrea