There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.- Ayn RandI've had the chance to read the proposed Florida Assault Weapons Ban, SB1670, and it's as big a steaming pile of crap offered under the guise of law as ever has been written. It is remarkably close in wording to the version of the New York bill I was able to read several weeks ago, as that monstrosity made its way into law. No surprise, since they all appear to have been written by the same Bloomberg apparatchiks after the Aurora theater shooting. When the argument for more gun control fell flat, they sat on these draft laws with the intent to ram them through as soon as another mass shooting happened, as documented there by Politicker. Since there have been about 20 mass shootings per year as long as records have been kept, it was bound to come up soon. Alex Jones presents his line of evidence that the entire cast of characters behind these bills have had them written and waiting so that they don't let a good crisis go to waste.
Bloomberg was angry that the July Aurora shooting didn't bring gun control into the presidential election, but Obama was too close to victory to want to jeopardize it with talk of gun control or confiscation, as Democrats only talk about that when they're safely in office. Given that Romney has been perpetually weak on the issue, he might well have gained a few points by going hard after gun control. All of which is water under the bridge and merely interesting background.
The pile of suckage that is the Florida bill contains features I haven't seen before. It makes my 44 year old Remington Nylon 66 an assault weapon, by virtue of its built-in 14 shot fixed magazine (lines 64-66). It further outlaws the manufacture in Florida, not just possession, of its broad definition of assault weapons. With Taurus, KelTec, and Colt, to mention a few, Florida has a pretty healthy firearms industry. Lines 131-134 outlaw manufacture unless the guns go to the military or the police. Of particular concern to me is that it often makes reference to things that can be "readily converted". Readily converted by whom? A 10-year old with a nail file or someone that knows their way around tools? I have a desktop milling machine; I can modify a lot of things.
The point to make in fighting these laws is not that the language is wrong, or that they'll outlaw virtually every modern weapon in the world; I think the backers view that as a feature, not a bug. The point to make is they'll make no difference. They're laws intended to make lawmakers feel good. When you get Feinstein-like crocodile tears about the dead bodies, the answer is that disarming people who aren't the problem will never change that. Chances are they'll try to distract you by saying "background checks!" or something like "surely you'll agree we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable?". Send them here. (H/T reader Dan, via private email). Until Minority Report happens and we get the ability to see the future, mass shootings will never be completely prevented. They may get stopped before the shooters get too many victims, as just happened recently in Oregon, or they may be more rare when we get rid of gun-free zones, but there's no way to prevent them all.
To you and I, these are flypaper laws, laws intended to trap completely innocent people and make their lives miserable. Make them spend money on lawyers and legal process. So the law allows you to keep your AR and three of your standard, 30 round capacity magazines: so what? Say you're driving home from the range with a couple of ARs and your 30 round magazines when you get rear-ended at a stop light. The officer responding to the accident sees the magazines and Bam!, you're under arrest. You have to hire the attorney, you have to go to court; you get the arrest record and you have to take the time off work. When you get to court it comes down to you telling the judge "I've had these magazines since long before the ban". The judge then asks the prosecutor, "What's your evidence to the contrary?", and when he says there is none you go home. Only you're about $10,000 lighter and a have a criminal charge on your record that doesn't go away. Maybe they seize your guns and won't return them, since you were arrested for "just cause" (the magazines are banned, and you did possess them, you just had an affirmative defense).
the Daily Clash - just because I like the picture)