Author: Grumpy
Categories
5 Guns to Buy Before a Ban in 2022
Seventy-five years have passed since George Orwell observed that, when challenged by uncomfortable facts, political advocates often descend into “euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” This is still the best description of the rhetorical approach being taken by the American gun-control movement.
Over the last four decades, as support for increasing restrictions has steadily eroded, America’s gun-control activists have attempted to redefine or obfuscate almost every element within the debate. Disfavored guns have been rebranded “assault weapons”—not because such a designation means anything useful or concrete, but because, as the anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann put it, the term takes advantage of “the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons” and helps to “increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Over the same period, gun control has been relabeled “gun safety”; standard-issue magazines have been deemed “high-capacity” magazines; firearms owned by prohibited persons have become “illegal guns”; mass-murderers have been deemed “active shooters”; deliberately crafted laws have been transmuted into “loopholes”; weapons that happen to be black have been classified as “military style”; confiscation drives have been termed “mandatory buybacks”; and everything—yes, everything—that the opponents of the Second Amendment seek to do has been cast as mere “common sense.”
One can get a good idea of the game that is being played by comparing the changes in public-opinion polling to the evolving names of America’s largest gun-control groups. Back in 1974, when Gallup was finding that 41% of Americans favored a ban on handguns, the organization that is now called the Brady Campaign was called the National Council to Control Handguns. Also, the organization that is now called The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Over time, as polling changed, so did the names of the groups that were calling for it. In 1980, the National Council to Control Handguns was renamed Handgun Control Inc. By 2001, it had become the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Today, with support for a ban on handguns at 25%—about the same number as believe that we should “defund the police”—it is simply known as Brady: United Against Gun Violence.
Thanks to a relentless pressure campaign, these euphemisms have become standard in the media—and beyond. Back in 2013, as the Obama administration geared up for its big gun-control push, the Center for American Progress sent a memo to politicians and journalists alike explaining how they should talk about guns if they wanted to “help.” The big piece of advice in the memo: To describe everything Obama sought to do as mere “gun-violence prevention.” Since then, the Center for American Progress and similar anti-gun groups have so rigorously policed the language in this area that the vast majority of reporters have come to follow their advice without thinking about it.
The results of this shift have not only been farcical, but have also greatly diminished our understanding of reality. It is now common for media outlets, such as CNN, to describe any criminal event as a “mass shooting,” irrespective of the circumstances or the setting. There’s been a gang fight in Chicago? “Mass shooting.” We have news of a family tragedy inside an apartment building? “Mass shooting.” So imprecise has the media become, in fact, that by the end of 2019 almost every American outlet was repeating the claim made by the activist Gun Violence Archive that there had been 418 mass shootings in the United States that year. The real number, per the definition used by the FBI, was six.
Off by a factor of 70. Orwellian mission accomplished, I suppose.
 |
| Earlier this week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he would be releasing firearms data via the California DOJ’s Firearms Dashboard Portal. That data contained gun owners’ names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses, and NRA-ILA sued the California DOJ in January to stop it from releasing gun owners’ information to university professors for “research purposes.” Throughout this litigation, the Cal DOJ has maintained that it has “robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that personally identifying information is not disclosed to the public,” and that it had “instituted three steps to ensure that personal identifying information is not publicly disclosed.” And just this week Attorney General Bonta declared that the: “DOJ seeks to balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains.” The court, understandably, relied on those repeated assurances and declined to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the Cal DOJ from releasing gun owners’ information. But those promises turned out to be empty, and those safeguards turned out to be nonexistent. That is why NRA-ILA asked the court to reconsider its decision on the temporary restraining order. Whether the leak was the result of malice or extreme negligence, the Cal DOJ must be held accountable for its shortcomings. NRA-ILA will continue to prosecute this case until that happens. The case is captioned Doe v. Bonta. |
 |
| The California Legislature starts their Summer recess today, but not before a busy week full of defiant action against the recent Supreme Court victory in the NRA case of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The legislature passed several anti-gun bills out of policy committees and passed eight anti-gun bills onto the Governor’s desk, two of which he signed yesterday immediately after receiving them. With this swift action, the NRA is continuing to fight these proposals and looking at all available options including litigation. Contact Governor Newsom at (916) 445-2841 and urge him to veto AB 311, AB 1594, AB 1769, AB 2156, SB 915, and SB 1327!
Signed by the Governor Assembly Bill 1621, introduced by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-65), expands what is considered a “precursor part” under existing law and requires serial numbers on those parts. Further, it expands the definition of “firearm” for purposes of criminal and regulatory penalties to include “precursor parts.” And finally, it prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or advertising of milling machines that have the sole or primary purpose of manufacturing firearmsto anyone other than licensed firearm manufacturers or importers. . *AB 1621 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately. Assembly Bill 2571, introduced by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-16), bans advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a way that is “attractive to minors,” replacing the language in current law banning specifically “advertis[ing] to minors.” This legislation is so broadly worded that it will be devastating to conservation, safety, and education efforts throughout the state. *AB 2571 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately. Passed by the Legislature and Will Soon Be Eligible for the Governor’s Consideration: Assembly Bill 311, introduced by Assembly Member Christopher Ward (D-78), prohibits the display or sale of any “precursor firearm parts” at gun shows on the Del Mar Fairgrounds of the 22nd District Agricultural Association. Assembly Bill 1594, introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-19), creates a private right of action against firearm industry members for failure to implement “reasonable” controls. This intentionally vague term can subject the industry to crippling lawsuits regardless of whether there is any actual violation of law. Assembly Bill 1769, introduced by Assembly Member Steve Bennett (D-37), prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 31st District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property or buildings that comprise the Ventura County Fair and Event Center or properties in Ventura County and the City of Ventura that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District. Assembly Bill 2156, introduced by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (D-15), reduces the number of firearms a private citizen can manufacture in a year from 50 to no more than three. In addition, it prohibits private citizens from using 3D printing to make firearms, precursor parts, or magazines. Senate Bill 915, introduced by Senator Dave Min (D-37), bans state officers or employees, operators, lessees, or licensees from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition on property that is owned, leased, occupied, or operated by the state. Senate Bill 1327, introduced by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-18), creates a private right of action that allows individuals to file civil suits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, sells, or imports firearms banned in California, as well as precursor firearm parts. Current law already allows for remedies for illegal activities by firearm dealers and manufacturers. Passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), was amended to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling placing significant reforms on California’s existing conceal carry laws. Some of the provisions include: significantly expanding gun-free zones, requiring signage for private businesses where you “can” carry, doubling training requirements, and maintaining the ability to do in-person interviews, psychiatric evaluations, and allowing “time place, and manner” restrictions on permits. *SB 918 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3. Passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee Assembly Bill 1227, introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-10), was gutted and amended to contain language from Assembly Bill 1223. It places an excise tax of 10% on the sales price of a handgun, and places an 11% excise tax on the sales price of all long guns, rifles, firearm precursor parts and ammunition. These taxes are to be collected from California retailers and placed in a newly created fund for appropriation by the state legislature. *AB 1227 will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 1. Assembly Bill 2870, introduced by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-53), expands California’s gun violence restraining order to allow additional reporters, to now include roommates, dating partners, and additional family members, out to the 4th level of consanguinity and affinity (this could include out to the first cousin in-law or a great-great-grandparent). *AB 2870 has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing at this time. Passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee Senate Bill 505, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-9), makes a person who owns a firearm strictly civilly liable for each incident of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of the firearm. Additionally, the legislation requires a firearm owner to obtain and continuously maintain insurance as well as keep evidence of this coverage with the firearm at all times. *SB 505 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3. |