Assault Weapons Ban proposed in Wisconsin

[Kang Colby]

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/78/subeck/media/1149/15-3635_1-002.pdf


This bill would ban most semi-automatic rifles, some handguns, and doesn't have a grandfather clause; which if enacted would amount to confiscation. Of course, this is another when pigs fly bill, but it does ultimately help the 2A cause.

Under the bill, whoever transports, purchases, possesses, or transfers a semiautomatic assault weapon is guilty of a felony and may be fined up to $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to six years, or both.

Imagine spending six years in prison, because someone noticed you had a bayonet lug on grandpa's M1 Carbine.

I posted this in another thread, but I find the analysis fitting for the occasion.

Personally, I like bills like this. This is nothing more than a gun control publicity stunt, meant solely to establish gun control bona fides for its sponsor. That’s it. This bill, like all other gun control bills will never see a committee vote. It will never leave committee and will rest peacefully in a desk drawer. No one will formally discuss or debate the merits of this proposal in any legislative committee. That’s the reality of it. I realize this fact; most of you folks understand how this works.

But a lot of folks don’t realize this. The GOA & NRA will trumpet bills like this using social media and direct mailers. State based 2A organizations will talk about the bills during their chapter meetings. Money will flow into the NRA/Pro-2A coffers. When nothing materializes the national 2A orgs will celebrate this as another victory…all thanks to the support of ordinary folks like you. With each of these bills, we are able to bring in more and more money. With more money we can get more done; while making it all the more likely we will be able to defeat any potential legitimate gun control proposal in the future. Today’s “Assault Weapons Ban ” bill is funding for tomorrow’s constitutional carry state. It provides resources for more sophisticated marketing efforts that allow us to grow the base. We’ve been able to do a lot over the last few years and have made significant progress in expanding our reach thanks to monetary inflows. Bills like this indirectly provide funding for groups like SAF to file and support lawsuits against gun control. We were able to get suppressors in Minnesota, spent shell casing laws repealed in Maryland, constitutional carry in Maine and Kansas, some campus carry in Texas, simplified permitting in Michigan, reduced permit costs in Mississippi, repeal of the 48 hour waiting period in Wisconsin, and expansion of carry rights in states across the country. For that, I have to thank the gun controllers because without their absolutism, a lot of what we do just would not be possible due to lack of funding.

Any gun control proposal, regardless of its merits is a good thing for national 2A. So, in that regard I love bills like this. They amount to a huge fundraising effort for 2A. What’s not to love? Well, there is a major downside…

The message that many folks around the country hear when bills like this are proposed, is “the only thing standing between you and an assault weapons ban is the Republican Party.” They remember that and they will be at the polls 100% of the time. As a lifelong Democrat, I think its seriously time we push gun control support as far away from the party as possible.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. K&R n/t

[virginia mountainman]

2. Stop spreading NRA Lies..

No one wants to take your guns.....

[Travis_0004]

3. Did Wisconsin decide they have too many democrats in office

Because I know a good way to get a few more republicans elected.

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. +1 n/t

[beevul]

4. But...but...but...Nobody wants to take anyones guns...

[DonP]

5. Waiting for the right cartoon?

I was wondering why we haven't heard much from our control minded friends, then I realized they are probably all waiting for just the right cartoon or basement blog post as a response to any post in the Gungeon.

[Kang Colby]

6. Think about the hatefulness and contempt expressed towards gun owners in this bill.

The thought of an otherwise law abiding gun owner serving six years in state prison for owning a semi-automatic rifle is absurd and horrifying at the same time. It also makes the bill's sponsors look delusional. Wisconsin has a Republican controlled legislature and a Republican governor. If we keep it up, it's going to stay that way for a long time.

[beevul]

7. Don't worry folks, the usual suspects will be along shortly...

Don't worry folks, the usual suspects will be along shortly to tell us how they oppose this legislation.



Seriously though, expect the silence to be deafening. It will be elegant proof that when gun control proponents say they just want 'reasonable' 'common sense' measures, they have nothing of the sort in mind.

[GGJohn]

8. Does this idiot realize how fast the courts would strike this down?

It would be ruled unconstitutional before the ink even dried.
But it's irrelevant, this bill has no chance of passing.

[Straw Man]

11. Don't be so sure.

New York's AWB has so far held fast. The other parts of the "SAFE" Act are crumbling as we speak -- seven-round limits, ammo background check -- but the "one-feature" AW test has held so far.

[GGJohn]

12. Oh, I'm fairly confident the courts would strike this down toot sweet.

It includes semi auto handguns, which are, by far, the most popular handguns bought and used in these United States.

[Straw Man]

13. Check again.

It includes semi auto handguns, which are, by far, the most popular handguns bought and used in these United States.

It has a "features" test for those too, which most standard types would pass. However, this law contains the same idiotic stipulation about pistol magazines that are affixed outside the grip that New York has. They're trying to ban Tec-9s, ...



... but they're also banning Olympic competition pistols:

[GGJohn]

14. Hmmm, hadn't seen that.

But, in WI, I'm still fairly confident that this bill will never see a vote and even if it did, I believe the courts would do the right thing and rule it unconstitutional.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. This would outlaw an antique Mauser C96

Probably not widely used in criminal activity.

[jmg257]

17. Courts, at least one in NY, are using the Heller decisions to UPHOLD

bills like this.

http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2015/10/Shew-v-Malloy-207-1-opinion-CCDL.pdf

An interesting & educational read, about appeals in CT and NY.

Without the militia purposes of the 2nd, they can decide, based on Heller I (& II), that while the 2nd secures a self-defense/individual right, that right is not unlimited, and it may be in the govt interest to further limit that right.


"The instant bans are dissimilar from D.C.’s unconstitutional prohibition of “an entire class of ‘arms’ that
is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self‐defense. New York and Connecticut have not
banned an entire class of arms.
Indeed, plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that there is no class of firearms known as “semiautomatic assault weapons”—a descriptor they call purely political in nature. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the legislation does prohibit “firearms of a universally recognized type—semiautomatic.” Not so. Rather, both New York and Connecticut ban only a limited subset of semiautomatic firearms, which contain one or more enumerated military‐style features.
As Heller makes plain, the fact that the statutes at issue do not ban “an entire class of
‘arms’” makes the restrictions substantially less burdensome. In both states, citizens may continue to arm themselves with non‐semiautomatic weapons or with any semiautomatic gun that does not contain any of the enumerated military‐style features. Similarly, while citizens may not acquire high‐capacity magazines, they can purchase any number of magazines with a capacity of ten or fewer rounds. In sum, numerous “alternatives remain for law‐abiding citizens to acquire a firearm for self‐defense.”

[benEzra]

20. That ruling was a mess.

That decision not only ignored the "in common use for lawful purposes" test in D.C. v. Heller, but it also ignored the fact that intermediate scrutiny (itself a cop-out, given that the standard for the Bill of Rights is usually strict scrutiny) requires less restrictive alternatives to be considered; the court did not even pretend to do so, just nodded their heads in ignorance and accepted the anti-protruding-handgrip talking points as gospel. Not to mention the sophistry of calling an 11-round rifle magazine "high capacity" without considering that the very first repeating rifles to go mainstream in the 1860s held 15 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber; that's like calling an 11th-week abortion "late term" and thereby justifying a ban on same under Roe v. Wade. And then the silliness of declaring that one of the most popular and least misused civilian guns in U.S. homes, and the #1 target rifle in America, is not "in common use for lawful purposes" but is "dangerous and unusual" even though it's less powerful than most alternatives. Sigh...

Second-Class Intermediate Scrutiny
Contradictions with Heller and McDonald rulings

I suppose NY rifle owners can take solace in the fact that most counties have declared they won't enforce it, most of the state is in open defiance of it, the law wrecked Cuomo's shot at running for President, and you can still legally buy a new AR in NY, albeit an ugly one. The law made a certain Wall Street oligarch happy, though, and that's what's really important.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Can stupid politicians...

...be sued for malpractice?

[OakCliffDem]

15. But, but, but, there is sophisticated mathematical analysis that shows different

Even it this bill is defeated and we lose more state and national congressional seats to Republicans, we can be assured we have actually won the favor of the public.

[ileus]

16. Who did bloomie pay to get this bill proposed?

I suppose he's betting they'll be good little antigun lap dogs because it's a "Northern" state.

[benEzra]

19. Of 158 murders in Wisconsin in 2014, fewer than 10 involved *any* kind of rifle.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2014 (FBI)

[font face="courier new"]Wisconsin
Total murders...................... 158
Handguns............................ 79
Firearms (type unknown)............. 28
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 19
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 13
Hands, fists, feet................... 9
Rifles............................... 8
Shotguns............................. 2
[/font]

Is the threshold for Prohibition in the state set at "anything that kills more than 7 people in the entire state in a year"? Because that's what this bill is proposing to do.

And six years in prison for merely having the wrong shaped handgrip on a rifle in your gun safe? Seriously?

[beevul]

21. 'Reasonable common sense' dontcha know.

Their mask is slipping, and I think just about everyone knows it at this point.