44 AMP said:
I suggest you all remember the story and the words of Pastor Martin Niemoeller
to update them to this issue, I would say "First, they came for the assault weapons....."
Too true.
Even "assault weapons" themselves are subject to "creeping incrementalism." Case(s) in point: New York and Connecticut. For many years, their definition of "assault weapon" mirrored the language of the late, unlamented federal AWB: basically, two "evil" features allowed -- and, typically, those were the detachable magazine and the protruding pistol grip. And then there were "pre-bans," which were considered legal to own irrespective of the ban, because the ban wasn't retroactive.
And then came Sandy Hook, and the New York SAFE Act and whatever Connecticut's analog to the SAFE Act was, and "assault weapon" was redefined from two evil features to one evil feature. So A lot of people who had thought they were safe owning "post-ban" configuration AR-15s (no flash hider, no bayonet lug, etcetera) woke up one morning to find that, by a stroke of the governor's pen they now owned an "assault weapon."
In Connecticut, where I was working at the time, there was a limited window of opportunity to register your newly-designated "assault weapons" (and any high capacity magazines) with the State Police. And I believe the Connecticut law makes provision for inheritance. But no new "assault weapons" can be brought into the state. If you relocate into Connecticut, you have 90 days (I think) to either sell it/them out of state, or turn them in to the police.
And those legal pre-ban AR-15s? I was talking to a friend in Connecticut over the weekend. Apparently, an agency that's part of either the AG's office or a legal branch of the legislature has determined that the State Police were wrong in telling people that pre-ban AR-15s were legal. Suddenly, they aren't.
These are real world examples of why we can't be complacent, and why nobody should sit back when "they" go after the other guy's guns. It may not affect you today but, once they've gotten all of "that" kind of firearm out of private ownership, it may be yours they come after next. All it takes is some late-night conniving and the stroke of a pen.
It should be remembered that BOTH the New York SAFE Act and the corresponding Connecticut law were enacted by the respective state legislatures under so-called "emergency" provisions that completely removed most of the checks and balances that normally apply to enacting new legislation. IIRC, that meant no public hearings, and no public comment period. "Here's what we want -- vote for it."
What was the emergency? Did they have tactical intelligence that there were large numbers of other people planning to buy guns and shoot up elementary schools? How would these so-called "emergency" laws have prevented another Sandy Hook? Nobody ever said ... the anti-gun faction in the respective legislatures just used that as a means to shove the bills through before anyone had a chance to read them and formulate cogent arguments against them.
We're all frogs, we're all in the pot together, and the anti-gunners are turning up the heat.
