Predictable: Gun Control Advocate Pushes Ineffectual Laws Already Passed

April 30, 2019

By

Matthew Hoy

It's predictable. In the wake of the tragic shooting last Saturday at the Poway, Calif., synagogue that left one dead and three others wounded, gun control advocates came out of the woodwork explaining that if we just outlawed "assault weapons," this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

Over at San Diego Jewish World, Philadelphia-based writer Bruce S. Ticker explained to readers that we need to ban assault weapons.

My modest assessment to Donald: The gunman had access to an assault weapon, the kind of device that advocates for gun control want banned. Which yields to this logic: A gunman cannot possibly kill one congregant and injure three others inside a synagogue, a church or a mosque if he cannot obtain an assault rifle or even a handgun.

California has an A-rating from Gabby Gifford's gun ban group, the only state that has that rating. Why?

Because California has already banned assault weapons. The law is exactly as Ticker would like it to be…and yet it didn't stop him from getting the weapon he used. It's almost as if we passed a law prohibiting murder, then no one would be murdered, because there would be a law against it!

While the weapon the shooter used has been described as an "AR-15 style" rifle, unless it was purchased before Jan. 1, 2017, and registered with the state before June 30, 2018, then it was not an assault weapon.

Since the shooter is only 19 years old, it's impossible that he legally purchased the firearm before 2017, as he would have been 16 or 17 years old.

While it may have looked like a scary black rifle, if purchased just the day before the shooting (as some media outlets curiously reported; California has a mandatory 10-day waiting period before you can take possession of a gun you've purchased so it's not clear how that could legally have occurred) it would've been a heavily neutered version of an AR-15 with a pinned stock, no pistol grip, no flash hider and it would have to be partially disassembled before allowing the shooter to change the magazine.

By California's legal definition: It was not an assault weapon.

California law also prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a firearm, so this kid could not have legally bought the even neutered firearm.

None of the gun control laws actually worked

Mr. Ticker presses for gun control laws on the national level that California just proved did nothing to stop the tragic shooting at the Poway synagogue. What did stop the shooting? A crazed Iraq War veteran who charged the gutless shooter and an armed, off-duty, Border Patrol agent.

California has passed every restrictionist, anti-2nd Amendment law that any politician or gun control advocate can come up with, and still last weekend's shooting occurred. Still the Thousand Oaks nightclub shooting occurred. Still the San Bernardino terrorist attack occurred.

The only solution that would 'work'

Remember gun owners, they aren't coming for your guns.

Despite calls for gun control, Congress has yet to pass legislation that would limit access to handguns and assault weapons, and the Poway rampage was among the latest in countless gun deaths.

It took less than a month – between March 15 and April 11 – for New Zealand’s government to outlaw military-style weapons after a gunman killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led the drive to make this law a reality, but it resembled a communal effort. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a final vote 119-1 on April 10 and it went into effect the next day with Governor General Patsy Reddy’s signature, according to the Associated Press.

Oops. Yes, they do want to come for your guns. Millions of them. With armed troops. Door-to-door.

It was long ago tiring to ask why Congress cannot follow New Zealand’s path. Stubborn stupidity?

I'm going to go with the 2nd Amendment.

People have also factored as reasons the rise of anti-Semitism and Trump’s rhetoric that could be harmful for minority members.

Let's blame Trump for this one even though the shooter himself complained that Trump's friendliness towards the Jews was one of the things that animated him.

There is truth in this, but how much damage can such people cause without weapons?

I dunno, ask Timothy McVeigh and the residents of Oklahoma City. Or maybe the residents of Nice, France. They might be able to offer some insight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © Restricted Arms
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram