Another Ban Proposal. New News Is Old News Is New Again.

[g8rb8]

This is probably old news to a lot of you but just in case you hadn't heard:
December 16, 2015:
"U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), along with 123 co-sponsors, today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 to prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of new military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.."


Cicilline and 123 House Colleagues Introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 | Congressman David Cicilline

 

[Watchdog]

This is H.R. 4269. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on December 16. David Cicilline is a member of that committee.

The bill will sit in committee a while. The House won't act on it this year, especially a week before Christmas.

The actual text/content of the bill hasn't even been written yet.

There will supposedly be 157 specific firearms included in the list to be banned, in addition to the overall "assault weapons" descriptions. As of now, no one has a clue what those specific weapons will be. Seriously...no one, not even Cicilline.

Cicilline will throw everything into this bill in hopes of getting some of it through. But if anyone believes Cicilline actually wrote this bill himself, you're mistaken. He may have written the title and the introductory summary. He has staff researching all the details. Cicilline is really just posturing here. Most of his legislative work during his relatively short time in the House has been in the areas of Medicare reform and senior citizens-related issues. He's out of his depth on gun-related issues.

It'll be a good idea to keep an eye on the bill's progress early in 2016, but I'm not too concerned yet. H. R. 4269 won't stand a chance of making it through the Senate.

 

[MadJack!]

From an email I got today:

A FREE REPORT FROM THE PUBLISHERS OF CONCEALED CARRY MAGAZINE
December 2015 • Issue No. 51

The Criminals' Conundrum
BY TIM SCHMIDT - USCCA FOUNDER

Tim Schmidt Just one day after 2015's final Republican debate focused heavily on national security, The Hill reported that House Democrats formally pushed "to renew a 1990s-era assault weapons ban...that was originally signed by President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago."

According to The Hill, the proposed legislation, dubbed the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2015," would "target semi-automatic and other military-style guns. It would ensure that no such weapons are manufactured for consumer use, while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons." The bill would include a ban on some popular rifles used for hunting.

I hate to break it to the 90 Democratic co-sponsors, including Rep. Janice Hahn and Rep. Steny Hoyer, but a new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post shows that "a majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years, with the public expressing vast doubt that the authorities can prevent 'lone wolf' terrorist attacks and a substantial sense that armed citizens can help."

Hoyer feigns understanding that "people want to protect themselves in their homes" but suggests the proposed ban "is a reasonable restraint."

Forgive me, but I don't think Hoyer gets it at all.

Perhaps these stats from the poll will help to clear things up a little:

"Just 45 percent in this national survey favor an assault weapons ban, down 11 percentage points from an ABC/Post poll in 2013 and down from a peak of 80 percent in 1994. Fifty-three percent oppose such a ban, the most on record."

That's right...the most people on record oppose regulations that would certainly prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

Furthermore, participants in the poll who claimed they opposed such a ban suggested that encouraging more people "to carry guns legally" is a more effective way of dealing with terrorism—particularly "lone wolf" attacks—than imposing more gun legislation.

Now, I know I could present revealing statistics like these all day long, but some people just refuse to accept the truth.

Maybe it takes something a little more ridiculous to reach these people. You know...something they can understand. I actually came across an outrageous little spoof yesterday called "Burglars for Gun Control" on the Bearing Arms website that I think paints the picture perfectly.

The short video featured a (fictitious) story about two burglars who "complain" about trying to break into a widowed mother's house after finding out she's armed.

The woman is forced to shoot and kill one of the criminals, which leaves his buddy standing on the street waving a "Burglars for Gun Control" sign and lamenting that breaking into houses now "is so scary."

He says, "As long as law-abiding citizens have guns, it's that much harder for burglars like me to do my job."

See, that's the thing about bad guys...they prefer their victims unarmed.

Now, I understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, and I know this "story" is made up, but sometimes it takes the absurd to make a point.

Here's the thing, then: the people who are pushing for more gun control are basically siding with the bad guys. They're essentially saying, "YES...we will help make it easier for bad guys to go to schools or workplaces or private residences and get what they want." They're essentially saying, "NO...the innocent people inside those places do not deserve to fight back."

When will these anti-gun politicians wake up? It's clear that most of America already has.

Take Care and Stay Safe,


Tim Schmidt
Publisher - Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder