Monday, December 24, 2012

Assault wepons bans are bad ideas.

Many folks have been moved by the events of last week and rightly so.  They were horrific and they were preventable, just not in the ways that Senator Diane Feinstein from California would have you believe.

In 1994, a ban was put in place to restrict the ownership of military-style 'assault weapons' from civilian hands.  This was based upon certain exact models as well as some ergonomic features that some folks saw as 'dangerous' or 'scary'.  They included the Colt AR-15 (named directly in the ban) as well as the following items along with others:  pistol grips, detachable magazines, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, and bayonet lugs.  Also banned were any magazines that could hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition.  This ban had zero effect on any items made before 1994, ex post facto laws are prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.  Those items are called 'pre-ban' as several states - including New Jersey and Connecticut -  still have active bans on these items.

This ban expired in 2004, despite President George W Bush stating publicly that he would sign any bill that came to his desk that would extend this ban.  Thankfully, no such bill came his way.

There are several reasons for this.  First, no appreciable increase in the decline of violent crime under the AWB was found by either the CDC or the FBI.  The one thing that did increase under the AWB was the number of crimes committed with magazines that were larger than 30 rounds in capacity.  Also, the Democrats took a severe beating in elections from 1994 through 2008 in no small part to their support of this ban.

Now, I have blogged about Diane Feinstein, the DNC's plank on Firearms and other things that the Dems have done in the past year to try and get the ban back in place so I won't cover those here.

Diane Feinstein has written a bill to reinstate the AWB with no provision for currently legally owned firearms to be allowed, total ban on production of parts for these firearms and a magazine capacity limit that would be accompanied with destruction of any 'high capacity assault clips'  (her words, not reality) held in civilian hands.  I have three words for the Distinguished Senator from California:  ex post facto.  Congress has no right to take anything away from me that is currently legal today to possess without fair compensation.  Looking at the current price of complete AR platform pistols and rifles, this would mean I would be owed $5000+ for my rifles/pistols and $300 for my magazines.

But wait, the battle has just begun!

United States v Miller in 1939 established that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms 100% covers military-grade firearms (Mr Miller's sawed off shotgun sans short barreled shotgun tax stamp was not fitting the court's description as no short barreled shotgun was in use by the military at that time) which means that 'assault weapons' under Diane's plan ARE PROTECTED.  Several jobs done in the US military use the semi-automatic AR-15 as an active part of their jobs, they do not require select-fire M4 rifles to conduct their duties.

This so far prompted the following letter to be sent to my Representative and Senators from Missouri:
Dear Sen. Roy Blunt, Sen. Claire McCaskill, and Rep. William Clay:
I oppose Sen. Feinstein's New Version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because it attempts to stop crime by making some 'features' on modern firearms illegal. This will not work.
During the previous ban, crime rates for violent crimes went unchanged from previous rates of decline as outlined in the FBI's Unified Crime Report from 1986 to 1994 and again from 2004 through 2011.
Also, Senator Feinstein's call for making existing firearms illegal to possess or transfer is in direct conflict with Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution. Ex post facto laws are a waste of time and resources as they are patenly unconstitutional.
The judicial review issued in United States v. Miller (1939) clearly states that Mr Miller's sawed off shotgun was not protected by the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms as it was not a military style firearm. The semi-automatic civilian versions of the M16A2 and M4 MBR fall under this decision as they are semi-automatic versions of current main battle rifles in use by our military today.
Please, work on actually funding the mental healthcare initiatives that were unfunded in the 1980's by the same group that is calling for them today.
Signature seen by Members of Congress:
Mr. Armed and Liberal in MO
My street Address
Missouri’s 1st district

The call for additional healthcare funding for mental health assistance grew out of this article:  In it, it reminds us that the Conservatives under Reagan fought back against the 'welfare state' put in place by the New Deal.  This very same group of politicians - some even the same Senators who as Representatives worked to de-fund this system -  are now rightfully calling for these intiatives to be refunded instead of enacting meaningless bans.  I agree with them, spree killers are the issue, not the tools that they use.

Please, craft letters similar to  the one I copied above and send them to your local, state and federal representatives.  We need common sense mental health care, not 'common sense' gun restrictions.  There are already laws against murder, we need fewer plea bargains and no new gun restriction laws.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Catching up

It's been a little while since I've posted up. Not much has been going on, no real progress has been made on the pistol build.

I have made a deal on a built AR rifle from a buddy of mine in the UP of Michigan. 16" midlength gas, LGC lower, mil spec 6 position stock. I may swap it out for Magpul furniture but I have to pay for this before I make changes to it. $1100 total, the deal is for a pair of Mosin rifles, 880 ends of ammo and cash.

January should see a P238 coming my wife's way. She really likes that little Sig, just need to get moving on getting it for her.

Next year will see an Uptick in the work done by the DGOC of Missouri. We really need t get moving on growing pro-gun support to make it harder to enact the wrong headed direction. Also, by this time next year we will have my wife's citizenship in hand.