Wednesday, February 13, 2019

2nd Amendment Attack Via State Constitution

As you've undoubtedly been reading lately, the fight for gun rights has been moving to the states.  Apparently Michael Bloomberg realized he can buy state legislators at a very substantial discount over federal legislators.  You might be tempted to say, "he's a billionaire, why should he care?" but people don't get to be billionaires by being stupid about money.  Bloomberg might be the most dependable asshole in American politics, but don't think he's an idiot. 

Where this moves into Florida is a group has started an effort to amend the state constitution to ban so-called "assault weapons".

Florida has a bizarre mechanism for amending the constitution.  Anyone can start a petition drive (pdf warning) to get a proposed change on the ballot.  Once it's on the ballot, a supermajority pass of 60% amends the constitution.  The persistent, shining example of the problem lurking here is the 2002 pregnant pig amendment story, which was the passage of  an amendment to the state constitution to outlaw a practice that I've heard was used by only two farmers in the entire state.  Two.  I don't think it's necessary to amend the constitution, which is forever, to change something that's a simple act for the legislature.  It's what we have a legislature for.

BAWN Florida (like hell I'll link to them) is still trying to get the signatures to put this on the 2020 ballot, and the legislature already has assault weapons bans in committee this year.

Since there's no such thing as an assault weapon (I assume my readership has been around guns long enough that everyone knows that story), it all comes down to what they say they're banning.  The Truth About Guns' reporter Luis Valdes does a little digging for us.
First, let’s look at the broad definition of an “assault weapon” under this ballot initiative.
a) Assault Weapons – For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition-feeding device. This subsection does not apply to handguns.

b) Semiautomatic – For purposes of this subsection, any weapon which fires a single projectile or a number of ball shots through a rifled or smooth bore for each single function of the trigger without further manual action required.
So pretty much any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun that can take more than 10 rounds of ammunition would be banned.

Now let’s look at what they determine a magazine to be.
c) Ammunition-feeding device – For purposes of this subsection, any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device for a firearm.
[bold added: SiG]
Banning anything "capable of holding" means any detachable magazine semi-automatic gun from a Ruger 10/22 to a Barret M107A1.  They're assuming voters will think of only AR-15s and perhaps AK-47s, but a lot of modern rifles fall in this ban.  Since the ban on magazine capacity says it applies to a fixed magazine gun, my 50 year old Nylon 66 (.22LR) first gun will be banned due to its 14 round tubular magazine built into the stock.

Ruger's 10/22 is often called "America's rifle" and there are more of them in the field than just about anything else.  The 10/22, the Marlin Model 60, Savage Mark II, Remington 597 or Mossber 702 are all similar in that they're semiautomatic, magazine fed guns that are often purchased for young shooters to learn with, for plinking, and fun.  All of these will make the owners third degree felons. 

A lot of us have said it a lot of times: "billionaire money gets this stuff passed", and I've almost worn out the bits that say, "money doesn't mean everything in politics".  I haven't see any commercials for BAWN, but I don't watch much TV and no "mass entertainment" TV at all.  No sitcoms, no reality shows, no singing competitions.  It's also very early for TV commercials about this.

While looking for the ballot initiative on the Division of Elections page, I found one for extending background checks that they're trying to get on the ballot.  
Extends the current 3-day waiting period between purchase and delivery at retail of a handgun to all purchases of all firearms. Requires that before delivery is made, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement conduct a background check on the purchaser and the seller receive a response approving the transfer of the firearm. Defines background check. Deletes current exclusion for concealed weapons permit holders and trade-ins. [Bold added: SiG]
Keep your eyes open for this stuff. 




16 comments:

  1. If this passes, I will be left with three choices:
    1 Move from Florida, the state that has been my home for 40 years.
    2 Ignore the law and wait to become a convicted felon
    3 Begin voting from the rooftops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same for me, except for 62 years instead of 40.

      It's getting to be time for everyone to consider these things. Money will be spent to challenge the results and it will take time in the courts. The law wouldn't be enforced across most of the state while that's going on, but sooner or later, it comes down to those choices.

      Delete
  2. Since nobody's obeying the gun bans in Connecticut, California, New Jersey, and Boulder, they aren't succeeding in taking additional freedom away. Look for them to attempt to remove freedoms in other areas. Will you stop obeying if they take away your permission to work, get a loan, fly, drive, cross a border, enter a hospital?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Our retarded voter referendum amendment process comes from the legislature ignoring the voters. Ignoring them for decades.

    The stupid crap that's been passing lately is an unintended consequence of the past necessity to break our legislature's refusal to do their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, you probably know where the offices are that these organizations use. Do what needs to be done.

    Use baseball bats and bricks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is there a corresponding method to remove or repeal an amendment to the State Constitution? If so, draft one or more amendments to the State Constitution and drop the petitions off at every gun club, range, and gun shop in Florida. An amendment requiring all households containing an able bodied man to also contain an AR-15 (or similar rifle) and 100 cartridges stored in four magazines kept next to the rifle for quick insertion sounds good to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Voting from the rooftop"(rule .308) is the only choice we have had for a long time. If you are unwilling to kill everyone involved with taking your rights, then you don't have any rights anyway, and you might just as well turn in those guns that you are to gutless to use anyway. Seriously. "Use them or turn them in" All other options are used up. It is no longer a matter of "if" the government go's door to door. It is only a matter of how long it takes to organize the death squads. The just made Barr the AG. You can expect another WACO any day. Maybe even a state wide Waco as an example to us on why we had better do as we are told or be burned alive.---Ray

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn, I didn't realize Barr was able to BS his way through the process, but since he and Waco Jim) fits the agenda of the Left , he must have sailed right through.

      Anyone who hasn't already, should read "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment", by Jeff Snyder
      (I'm willing to bet that Mark and probably everyone here on this page has read it.)

      Delete
    2. Barr was not Waco. That was Reno, and she is now burning in hell where she belongs. Barr was, however, Ruby Ridge.

      God damn him to hell. And God damn every FBI employee - at ANY level - since then.

      Delete
  7. SiG, if that is all that is needed to amend the state constitution, why not start one yourself to the effect that there cannot be any further gun laws or regulations (with the effect of law) that would infringe on the rights of Florida's residents (making it OK for tourists, vacation home owners, etc.) to own, carry, or equip with any accessory or device they wish, any firearm that is not full-automatic, with the exception of devices that are made to make a semi-automatic firearm fully automatic.

    That;s rough, and just off the top of my failing head, but I think you could get 60% of your citizens to vote yes on that, don't you? (You could _try_ to get the current restrictions dialed back, but that might be asking for too much, right at this point.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's feasible, but it's an "all ya gotta do" - one of the scariest phrases there is. I have no idea how much money is entailed in running a campaign like that, or any of those insider questions. In sheer size and area you'd have to cover, it would be a big job to get petitions in enough places to gather the needed 3/4 of a million signatures. Then advertising it enough to counter the Bloomberg money. I've heard that it usually takes two tries.

      It's said that the chances of passing are improved if the amendment is positively worded than negatively worded because voters lean toward voting Yes. So instead of saying, something like "shall pass no law restricting the rights of Florida citizens" it should have to say something like "The State of Florida shall not counter the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution and any resident or visitor to the state shall be allowed to own, carry and or use any firearm anywhere in the State except areas currently prevented by law", probably listing the section of the state law that defines those.

      ???

      IA(O)NAL - I Am Obviously Not A Lawyer

      Delete
  8. I'm not either, but I agree that a positive statement is stronger. I don't know how big or active your 2nd Amendment groups in Florida might be, but it you belong to one, or are willing to contact one with a suggestion along those lines, perhaps it could take root and grow.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tyranny always seems to be better funded than liberty, and they seem to stop at nothing to get power, which probably describes the shift in Silicon Valley from libertarianism (remember that???) to ardent leftism.

    I'm sure that they'll stop after this usurpation of rights, right??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Snip Tyranny always seems to be better funded than liberty,

      There's big money and power when you get to run the Gulags. Never a shortage of people who will pay to get that power.

      "Donate to me and I'll leave everyone alone" just doesn't seem to sell.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete