Connect with us

Gun Rights

Smells Like Infringement: Gun Banners Stinking Up the Joint Again

Published

on

That’s not sardines. That’s infringement.

My nana always told me, “Trace, if you can’t say something nice about somebody, you just come sit down right here next to me.”

Ever since the folks with a “D” after their names took the majority of the House last fall, the “gun control” schemes have been flying as fast and as furious as Vin Diesel’s prop car. That’s not great news for gun rights, nor is it great news for our poor, abused olfactory senses. You see, every time an anti-gunner dreams up an anti-gun scheme, their first order of business (right after they give the Washington Post their glowing, softball interview, that is) is to vehemently deny that their anti-gun plan is, in fact, anti-gun. “We just want common-sense gun laws,” they bleat, “nobody is trying to take your guns away!” The problem for them is that the large, steaming pile of gun-ban-scheme is still sitting there behind them, filling the air with the rank, mephitic stench of…infringement. Here are the top three I’ve seen so far this week:

The Rock knows what you’ve been cooking, and where you’ve been cooking it.

1. Let’s treat all guns like machine guns!

Frankly, I haven’t noticed any text in the Second Amendment that says infringement is OK if a gun is capable of firing more than one bullet per trigger squeeze, but the situation as it stands is that full-auto guns are legal to own…but you have to jump through some hoops, and you’d better have a lot of money to use as a trampoline. That’s why we’re starting this week’s installment of Smells Like Infringement with a double-dose of derpy-duh courtesy of Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL). It seems the Deutchbag wasn’t happy with his failed plan to ban AR-15s, which went over like a fart in church last year. He’s back, and he figures that the next best step is to introduce legislation making it so that any gun that’s capable of accepting a magazine with more than 10 rounds has to go through the NFA process for purchase…just as if it were a machine gun. That means, essentially, all semi-automatics–including rimfires. Months of waiting, a $200 tax stamp, and registration? I think I recognize that smell…

Oh, there ain’t enough Febreze in the world…

2. Let’s deny gun sales to people who Crimethink!

Remember a few months ago when New York State decided they were going to start combing through the social media profiles of potential gun purchasers before oh-so-graciously “granting” them a permit to own a gun? As it turns out, anti-gun states are pretty much like the girls I went to middle school with: One of ’em jumps off an anti-gun bridge, so they all have to do it. Not to be outdone, Illinois is currently considering legislation requiring local law enforcement to comb through a citizen’s social media accounts “to determine if there is any information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation of a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.” (Emphasis mine.) The bill doesn’t specify what type of information would qualify to get an FOID denied (or revoked), what to do if the citizen doesn’t have social media accounts, or what (if any) appeals process they could access if they’ve been denied. Nor does it specify whether the reviewer should have any passing familiarity with the First Amendment, let alone a sense of humor…

I already tried the t-shirt-over-the-nose trick. Nothing doing.

3. YOU get a gun-free zone, and YOU get a gun-free zone, and YOU get a gun-free zone!

In terrific news for the sorts of people who think criminals are deterred (not encouraged) by “gun-free zones,” the State of Washington is currently making its namesake spin in his grave by introducing Senate Bill 5434. This bill gives local governments the power to make whatever publicly-owned land they want into a “gun-free zone.” That means that parks and trails that were previously fine for legal concealed-handgun permit holders to visit could suddenly become off-limits at the whim of the local government. The idea isn’t to reduce crime–crime is at record lows–the idea is to take citizens’ tax dollars and use them to limit those citizens’ freedom. I seem to recall that there’s a name for that sort of thing. It’s just right on the tip of my tongue. Don’t worry, I’ll remember what it is shortly…after I step outside for some fresh air. Something smells pretty bad…

Trending