During the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 markup:
- Reps. Cicilline and McBath made fools of themselves by incorrectly referring to stabilizing arm braces for pistols as “bump stocks” and machineguns;
- Rep. Nadler admitted he wanted to violate the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment; and
- Rep. Johnson accidentally made the argument for why civilians should have these so-called “assault weapons.”
The hearing revealed just how ignorant opponents of the Second Amendment are about firearms, and even their own legislation.
Bump Stock Buffoons
After many hours of debate, an Amendment was offered to remove arm braces from the “assault weapons” ban in order to help ensure equal access to firearms for disabled shooters.
But the bill sponsor, Rep. Cicilline, strongly opposed the amendment, stating that “this stabilizing brace, when coupled with a buffer tube, operates as a bump stock.”
Rep. McBath jumped in to back him up, saying “I understand very well… what this brace does” and “[I have] a lot of experience working with gun safety experts and gun violence prevention organizations.”
According to Rep. McBath, the existence of stabilizing arm braces is “the reason why [Democrats] had a piece of legislation that would effectively ban bump stocks.”
Thankfully, Representative Thomas Massie called out these ignorant legislators at the markup, “I think it’s important that if you’re going to ban these things that you actually understand what you’re banning.”
The firearm technology in question here is not difficult to comprehend.
- A machinegun is, according to 26 U.S. Code § 5845, “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
- A bump stock is a device which functions as a stock for a rifle and allows the user to bounce their finger into a semiautomatic trigger, firing multiple rounds in a row at a continuous rate, often sounding like a machine gun.
- A stabilizing arm brace is an attachment for a pistol or smoothbore firearm that allows a user to more effectively hold that firearm with one hand, which is especially useful for disabled gun owners.
As it turns out, stabilizing arm braces have nothing to do with the fire rate of a firearm. A stabilizing brace is a simple firearms accessory—it will not magically turn anything into a bump stock.
It is an outrage that legislators who cannot tell the difference between a firearm accessory and a firearm’s action mechanism are the authors of a ban on millions of firearms.
“Weapons of War” for Me, but Not for Thee
Now, given the ignorance with which they voted down an amendment to protect disabled gun owners, how well could Judiciary Democrats really have considered the other amendments which were voted down yesterday? Not at all!
Republicans offered very reasonable amendments to the Assault Weapons Ban to help those in most need of self-defense to have adequate weaponry to defend themselves and their loved ones, such as:
- Domestic violence victims;
- Human trafficking victims;
- Those living at the border under the threat of the cartels; and
- Those living where the police were defunded.
These were categorically voted down by Judiciary Democrats, with Rep. Jackson-Lee even suggesting that it was outrageous to give a victim of domestic violence an AR-15.
As it turns out, Rep. Jackson-Lee, women prefer the AR-15!
Later, Democrats even rejected a good-faith amendment by Rep. Massie to clarify that the bill does not ban triggers with lighter pulls, such as are commonly used by sporting and competition shooters. No consideration was given to correcting any flaw in the bill.
Given that the entire hearing was about why “weapons of war” only belong on a battlefield, one would be right to question why Democrats voted to allow the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture to maintain and use these very same “weapons of war” against the American people.
Of course, Representative Johnston (GA), the congressman who was worried that the island of Guam might suddenly tip over, claimed that Second Amendment advocates were speaking “nonsense.”
He later clarified that he believes that “the “barn door has been open for so long that so many misfits are in possession of military-style assault weapons that we can’t disarm our federal government.”
For some reason, bad guys having dangerous weapons is reason that the police need them for self-defense, but its not a good enough reason for Americans to own them for self-defense too.
Yesterday’s hearing was nothing short of a farce put on by ignorant politicians set on eliminating the rights of the people without ever stopping to question whether it was the right thing to do, the most helpful thing to do, or even the best way of accomplishing this anti-constitutional goal.
Anti-Gunners Admit to Violating Heller, McDonald, and Bruen SCOTUS Precedents
Indeed, the very first consideration for these legislators when crafting a gun law should have been the Second Amendment and its relevant case law. Democrats usually dig up anti-gun Supreme Court dicta or other anti-gun circuit court rulings to justify various infringements.
But this time, they forgot one of the most common themes from every Supreme Court gun case: weapons in common use are protected by the Second Amendment!
That’s why it was so striking to hear Representative Nadler state so clearly that they were trying to ban weapons in common use! Check out this exchange:
Rep. Bishop: “Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?”
Rep. Nadler: “That’s the point of the bill.”
Rep. Bishop: “So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today.”
Rep. Nadler: “Yes. The problem is that they’re in common use.”
The ignorance of these legislators on fundamental aspects of their own legislation undermines the legitimacy and authority with which they presume to legislate.
Gun Owners of America is opposed to the banning of any bearable arms, which are clearly protected from infringement by the Second Amendment.
We encourage all constitutionally-minded legislators to disassociate themselves from this legislation at all costs and to vote against it should it ever rear its ugly head on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.