This just in from Law & Liberty; New Gun Control Efforts: Prudence of Performance? Excerpt:
Biden repeatedly calls for reviving federal bans on both magazine capacity and “assault weapons.” Defining an “assault weapon” has proven challenging even for the president’s proposed ATF director, but supporters of the ban would probably identify them (and their high capacity magazines) from movies and television. As photogenic as they are, police departments like to display them when confiscated. However, the now-expired ban did not prevent the sale of the guns but only the inclusion of features like bayonet lugs or flash hiders. Admittedly, there were no criminal bayonet charges during the ten-year “assault weapon” ban.
The firearms industry calls these weapons “Modern Sporting Rifles” (MSRs). Hunters may have conflicting opinions about them, but gun buyers love MSR’s: there are about 20 million in circulation. Though cameras may shoot a lot of these guns, the guns very rarely shoot people; murderers almost never use rifles. Even though MSR’s have been used in highly publicized mass shootings, the Rand Corporation discerns no effect on violent crime by banning either these rifles or high capacity magazines. One leading gun control advocate recently explained the opportunity cost of this proposal when he said, “It is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban.” In short, insisting on a 1990s-era policy ignores what 27 years have taught us about the disconnect between assault weapons and violent crime.
Some of us didn’t need that intervening 27 years to understand how stupid and pointless the ’94 AWB was. Among other proscribed fittings, that now happily dead law outlawed bayonet lugs.
I suppose the goal was to protect the American voting public from a sudden rash of criminals lining up and conducting bayonet charges against honest folk?
While I agree broadly with the arguments put forth in the article – they are good arguments, especially while arguing the specific case of modern semi-auto rifles – the final argument is simply found here:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
End of discussion.
But in the Imperial City as well as in state capitols around the nation, the arguments continue. Add that to a long, long list of things the various levels of government do to waste our time and money.