Trump Fulfills Another Campaign Promise for Holy Week
A Judge *Did What Now* Regarding That Deported Illegal Alien Case
The Latest ICE Arrest Is Going to Trigger a Meltdown...If It Hasn't Already
Marjorie Taylor Greene Made a Stock Trade – Now Democrats Are Clamoring for...
Your State Could Be Next—Here’s How Wealthy Foreigners Are Buying Policy Without Your...
ABC News Deceives About the Shapiro Arsonist, While the Media Continue Lying About...
South Carolina Lawmakers Consider Atoning for Past Sins Against Second Amendment
Weak US R&D Incentives Are Driving American Innovation Offshore
Media Gave 62 Times More Coverage to Trump Tariffs Than Booming Jobs Report
California Bill Lets Students Sleep In Cars; Critics Call It a Band-Aid for...
American Students Trapped In Denmark After Uber Dispute Leads to Arrest, Passport Seizure
Pam Bondi Fires Off on the So-Called ‘Maryland Man’ Who Got Deported
Trump White House Directs Congress to Defund NPR, PBS
Video: Horrible Person Says Horrible Thing in Support of Another Horrible Person
Scott Jennings Has a Message for Harvard Regarding Federal Funding
Tipsheet
Premium

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