Dr. John Lott has a brand new op-ed piece at Townhall.
Democrats simply can’t let go of their push for an assault weapons ban. In the meantime, Individuals are ready for the Supreme Courtroom to intervene. 13 instances, the courtroom has relisted the Snope v. Brown case, which addresses Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. It appears more and more seemingly the courtroom will hear the case subsequent yr, and the selections in Heller and Bruen make it clear that these bans are unconstitutional. These legal guidelines ban weapons “in widespread use,” and no comparable historic analogexists for these bans.
However on April 30, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) launched the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban of 2025.” It picks up the place his predecessor, Dianne Feinstein, left off. It bans semi-automatic rifles that use removable magazines and have a barrel shroud, a canopy for the barrel that permits the person to carry the barrel whereas aiming the gun with out burning their hand. Schiff’s invoice would outlaw extensively owned semi-automatic firearms just like the AR-15.
Only a week earlier, Illinois state Sen. Celina Villanueva launched the “Accountable Gun Manufacturing Act,” which would successfully ban widespread Glock semi-automatic handguns.
In April, Colorado enacted a regulation that makes it unlawful to purchase, promote, and make semi-automatic firearms which have removable ammunition magazines with out time-consuming coaching that the governor hopes might value $200.
This push isn’t new. In 1998, then–Illinois state senator Barack Obama backed a ban on “the sale or switch of all types of semi-automatic weapons.” For years, gun-control advocates focused weapons primarily based on their look. Now, as an alternative of going after how a gun seems to be, Democrats have shifted to focusing on how weapons perform. In 2021, President Joe Biden introduced: “whether or not it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether or not it’s a rifle — is ridiculous. I’m persevering with to push to eradicate the sale of these issues.” In 2022, he stated: “I don’t see any rationale to why there must be such a weapon capable of be bought.”
The AR-15 grew to become a well-liked goal as a result of it resembles the navy’s M-16. However AR-15s use primarily the identical bullets as do small-game looking rifles. They even fireplace on the identical rapidity and trigger the identical harm. Not like absolutely computerized machine weapons, which is able to fireplace bullets for so long as you press the set off, semi-automatic weapons fireplace just one bullet per set off pull. No self-respecting navy on the earth would use these semi-automatic weapons.
The uninformed should ask, “Why do individuals want an AR-15 to kill deer?” “What do you suppose – deer are carrying Kevlar vests?” Equally, in 2023, Florida Congressman Jared Moskowitz claimed individuals don’t hunt deer with an AR-15 as a result of it will depart “nothing left.” However they’ve it backwards. Certainly, most states prohibit utilizing the AR-15’s .223-inch bullets out of concern that they’ll wound, not kill, the animal, they usually don’t need to make the deer endure. The AR-15 simply seems to be like a navy weapon, however it’s only a small game-hunting rifle.
If, nevertheless, the Democrats plan to ban semi-automatic handguns, banning revolvers isn’t going to be far behind. Not that banning revolvers would scale back gun crime, both.
Revolvers get their title from a revolving cylinder that accommodates bullets in separate chambers. Gun-control advocates will finally understand that revolvers truly fireplace bullets at a sooner fee than do semi-automatic pistols — semi-automatics should do much more work to load the following bullet within the chamber. Semi-automatics can maintain extra bullets and it was once true that they may very well be reloaded extra rapidly than revolvers. However whereas semi-automatics are nonetheless simpler to reload, expertise has superior to the purpose the place individuals can reload revolvers simply as rapidly.
In distinction to semi-automatics that may maintain {a magazine} of any dimension, revolvers are restricted to eight to 10 bullets (relying on the caliber of the bullets getting used). However with coaching, a mass shooter can fireplace simply as many bullets with a adequate rapidity that their capability to commit these crimes could be unaffected by the point wanted to reload.
Furthermore, revolvers have a serious benefit over semi-automatics: They don’t jam as ceaselessly. The spring in {a magazine} can lose power and, subsequently, its capability to correctly push bullets cleanly into the chamber. Massive-capacity magazines make jamming more likely, as you want a really sturdy spring to push the previous couple of bullets into the chamber. Jammed weapons saved lives in each the Aurora, Colo, movie-theater capturing and the Gabby Giffords capturing in Tucson, Ariz.
Both approach, immediately’s ignorant politicians need to ban all semi-automatic weapons. Tomorrow they’ll push to ban revolvers.
Will this make anybody safer or scale back gun violence? No.
Whereas mass shooters can plan their assaults by bringing a number of weapons, additional magazines, or pace loaders for revolvers, concealed-carry allow holders are unlikely to lug alongside any additional gear. And the law-abiding citizen received’t be capable of carry as many bullets in a authorized revolver as in a doubtlessly unlawful semi-automatic.
So, if the Democrats ban self-loading weapons that fireplace a bullet every time you pull the set off, what’s the various? Single-shot rifles that require you to reload the gun after every shot bodily? Derringer handguns that may fireplace one or two rounds earlier than they’re reloaded?
Make no mistake, there could be an actual value to those bans, notably for probably the most weak people who find themselves more likely to be victims of violent crime (poor blacks who dwell in high-crime areas) and people who are weaker bodily (girls and the aged).
Single-shot weapons could not do individuals loads of good when they’re going through a number of attackers. Or, for that matter, when their first shot misses or fails to cease an attacker. These are merciless proposals for individuals who need to have the ability to defend themselves and others. The query is: Do these Democrats care?
Hopefully, the Supreme Courtroom will quickly put an finish to all this craziness.
