No one wants to take your guns.....

Because I know a good way to get a few more republicans elected.

I was wondering why we haven't heard much from our control minded friends, then I realized they are probably all waiting for just the right cartoon or basement blog post as a response to any post in the Gungeon.

The thought of an otherwise law abiding gun owner serving six years in state prison for owning a semi-automatic rifle is absurd and horrifying at the same time. It also makes the bill's sponsors look delusional. Wisconsin has a Republican controlled legislature and a Republican governor. If we keep it up, it's going to stay that way for a long time.

Don't worry folks, the usual suspects will be along shortly to tell us how they oppose this legislation.



Seriously though, expect the silence to be deafening. It will be elegant proof that when gun control proponents say they just want 'reasonable' 'common sense' measures, they have nothing of the sort in mind.

It would be ruled unconstitutional before the ink even dried.
But it's irrelevant, this bill has no chance of passing.

New York's AWB has so far held fast. The other parts of the "SAFE" Act are crumbling as we speak -- seven-round limits, ammo background check -- but the "one-feature" AW test has held so far.

It includes semi auto handguns, which are, by far, the most popular handguns bought and used in these United States.

But, in WI, I'm still fairly confident that this bill will never see a vote and even if it did, I believe the courts would do the right thing and rule it unconstitutional.

bills like this.

http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2015/10/Shew-v-Malloy-207-1-opinion-CCDL.pdf

An interesting & educational read, about appeals in CT and NY.

Without the militia purposes of the 2nd, they can decide, based on Heller I (& II), that while the 2nd secures a self-defense/individual right, that right is not unlimited, and it may be in the govt interest to further limit that right.


"The instant bans are dissimilar from D.C.’s unconstitutional prohibition of “an entire class of ‘arms’ that
is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self‐defense. New York and Connecticut have not
banned an entire class of arms.
Indeed, plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that there is no class of firearms known as “semiautomatic assault weapons”—a descriptor they call purely political in nature. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the legislation does prohibit “firearms of a universally recognized type—semiautomatic.” Not so. Rather, both New York and Connecticut ban only a limited subset of semiautomatic firearms, which contain one or more enumerated military‐style features.
As Heller makes plain, the fact that the statutes at issue do not ban “an entire class of
‘arms’” makes the restrictions substantially less burdensome. In both states, citizens may continue to arm themselves with non‐semiautomatic weapons or with any semiautomatic gun that does not contain any of the enumerated military‐style features. Similarly, while citizens may not acquire high‐capacity magazines, they can purchase any number of magazines with a capacity of ten or fewer rounds. In sum, numerous “alternatives remain for law‐abiding citizens to acquire a firearm for self‐defense.”

That decision not only ignored the "in common use for lawful purposes" test in D.C. v. Heller, but it also ignored the fact that intermediate scrutiny (itself a cop-out, given that the standard for the Bill of Rights is usually strict scrutiny) requires less restrictive alternatives to be considered; the court did not even pretend to do so, just nodded their heads in ignorance and accepted the anti-protruding-handgrip talking points as gospel. Not to mention the sophistry of calling an 11-round rifle magazine "high capacity" without considering that the very first repeating rifles to go mainstream in the 1860s held 15 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber; that's like calling an 11th-week abortion "late term" and thereby justifying a ban on same under Roe v. Wade. And then the silliness of declaring that one of the most popular and least misused civilian guns in U.S. homes, and the #1 target rifle in America, is not "in common use for lawful purposes" but is "dangerous and unusual" even though it's less powerful than most alternatives. Sigh...

Second-Class Intermediate Scrutiny
Contradictions with Heller and McDonald rulings

I suppose NY rifle owners can take solace in the fact that most counties have declared they won't enforce it, most of the state is in open defiance of it, the law wrecked Cuomo's shot at running for President, and you can still legally buy a new AR in NY, albeit an ugly one. The law made a certain Wall Street oligarch happy, though, and that's what's really important.

...be sued for malpractice?

Even it this bill is defeated and we lose more state and national congressional seats to Republicans, we can be assured we have actually won the favor of the public.

I suppose he's betting they'll be good little antigun lap dogs because it's a "Northern" state.

Their mask is slipping, and I think just about everyone knows it at this point.