Following the tragic and bizarre shooting that occurred in Las Vegas last weekend, there’s no doubt that stricter gun control measures are coming. Even President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are expressing a willingness to go along with new firearm laws. Just how far will the freedom robbing attack on American 2nd Amendment rights go?
In the immediate aftermath of the Vegas bloodshed, Democrats wasted no time calling for a bevy of new gun laws. And before a single piece of new gun control legislation was introduced, the Democrats were making headway in stifling 2nd Amendment freedoms.
That’s because House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) decided to drop a bill which would make it easier for American shooting sport enthusiast to obtain firearm suppressors from the legislative agenda.
“I don’t know when it will be scheduled,” Ryan said.
There’s a strong likelihood that the answer is never.
In the meantime, plenty of legislative proposals aimed at taking away 2nd Amendment rights are going to have a day in front of the nation’s elected class. Many of them will draw bipartisan support, some already are.
Already legislation is emerging in both chambers to make illegal “bump-stocks,” which allow semi-automatic firearms to fire more rapidly by allowing the weapon to move freely and bounce off a shooters trigger finger.
Never mind that the same effect can be accomplished without fitting the weapons with the specialized stocks, lawmakers are incorrectly describing the devices as a sort of bolt-on automatic fire conversion for sporting rifles.
A version of the legislation being pushed in the Senate by Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.”
In other words, you’d better get rid of that sliding stock within 180 days of passage or risk a visit from the ATF.
A bipartisan version of the legislation being worked on in the House by Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.).
The ban is expected to draw hefty bipartisan support.
Texas Republican Rep. Bill Flores told The Hill he’s all-in for the legislation, saying: “I think they should be banned. There’s no reason for a typical gun owner to own anything that converts a semi-automatic to something that behaves like an automatic.”
“Based on the videos I heard and saw, and now that I’ve studied up on what a bump stock is — I didn’t know there was such a thing — there’s no reason for it,” he added.
“I have no problem from banning myself from owning it.”
The National Rifle Association evidently agrees. In a statement Thursday, it called on the ATF to immediately review the legality of the stocks:
In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
I tend to agree with Flores that bump-stocks are pretty pointless. But banning the devices is the first step on a slippery slope to more extreme gun control measures.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), for instance, told PJ Media Tuesday that he believes Americans who own semi-automatic rifles should be forced to keep the firearms under lock and key at gun clubs.
“I would hope that when you look at what’s happened with mass shootings in the last years that we, at a minimum, establish the principle that if you are going to own a military-type weapon that should be locked away in a gun club and not carried in public – that is completely consistent with the Second Amendment and it’s a principle that we should apply nationally,” Foster said.
The lawmaker added that the scheme is consistent with the 2nd Amendment because it fits the definition of “well-regulated.”
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), meanwhile, told the outlet that the manufacture of such weapons should be banned.
“We should not be selling guns of mass destruction like that. Those are not guns that are used for people to defend themselves in their homes. Those are guns that are just used to kill hundreds and injure hundreds of people. They’re not really used for self-defense. They are offensive weapons, that’s what they were designed to be, plus we don’t have a system of really complete background checks,” Lowenthal said.
The goal is to create the narrative that anyone who wants to own certain types of firearms or more than a “normal number” of firearms is a potential terror threat. Though we know little else about him, there’s plenty of information floating around about how many and what type of firearms the Las Vegas shooter purchased.