With all the insane new Gun Control laws beginning to clog up the agendas of State Capitols, it was only a matter of time before another State followed suit. Kansas Democrats have filed two gun control bills for the upcoming legislative session. Rep. Vic Miller, a Topeka Democrat, wants to ban bump stocks — rifle add-ons that make a semi-automatic weapon work much like a fully automatic gun.
“Bump stocks effectively circumvent federal laws that place tight restrictions on automatic weapons that can peel off several rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger.
“The only purpose these devices serve is so madmen can kill more people quicker,” Miller said.
Another Democrat, Lawrence Rep. Boog Highberger, has introduced legislation that would make it a crime to abandon a firearm in public. He said the bill is in response to a gun found in a bathroom on the University of Kansas Campus.
Last year, a state lawmaker also left a handgun in a committee room during a meeting.
Republican House Majority Leader Don Hineman, from Dighton, expects there will be firearm debates. He believes the fact that it’s an election year may prompt more talk of social issues and gun laws.”
Some lawmakers have criticized the state law that allowed concealed weapons on college campuses last year, but efforts to amend the policy have failed in recent years.
Lawmakers modified state law last year, allowing public hospitals to continue banning concealed weapons. Hineman said after that heavy lifting, there might not be much appetite among lawmakers to consider gun bills this year.
Kansas isn’t alone in wanting more control over firearms however. Oregon has passed a new gun law that is quite possibly one of the biggest violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments that I have ever seen.
Senate Bill 719 created a process by which a judge can issue an “extreme risk protection order” to seize an individual’s guns if petitioned by a law enforcement officer or family member.
The petition must show the person in question is an immediate risk to themselves or others through a statement or affidavit under oath. The court will consider, in part: history of suicide threats or attempts; history of physical violence; previous convictions for stalking, domestic violence, or cruelty toward animals; and previous unlawful and reckless use of a deadly weapon.
If a petition is made, the court will hear the case and deny or issue an order that day.
Groups looking to curb gun violence by targeting guns directly promote laws such as this, saying they can be a proactive way to prevent unneeded deaths according to the StatesmanJournal.com.
Then there is California and Proposition 63. Proposition 63 is being fought tooth and nail by Gun Rights groups in California. What is thought to be “helping the community” by anti-gun advocates, is in all actuality a clear violation of the Second Amendment. Never in the history of humanity, have criminals ever cared or worried about following the law. Take a look at the “New Gun Laws” as posted on the California Lt. Governors page on the California State Government’s website and as reported by multiple news media sources.
- Criminal Relinquishment of Firearms (Gun Control)
Beginning on January 1, 2018, Proposition 63 introduces and implements a clear, mandatory, and enforceable process for criminal offenders to give up their firearms upon their conviction.
- Ammunition Sales (Gun Control)
Beginning on January 1, 2018, Proposition 63, ammunition sales must be conducted by or processed through licensed vendors. It will serve to prevent certain convicted criminals from purchasing ammunition once the new law for background checks for ammunition sales come online in July 2019.Sales of ammunition by unlicensed individuals must be processed through a licensed ammunition vendor, in a manner similar to private party firearms transactions, and ammunition obtained over the Internet or from out of state must be initially shipped to a licensed ammunition vendor for physical delivery to the purchaser pursuant to a background check.
- Restrictions on Magazine Capacities (Gun Control)
“In June, two federal judges in separate District Courts considered request to delay implementation of Proposition 63’s large capacity magazine provisions, which were scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The two judges reached opposite conclusions.In Duncan v. Becerra, the case in which Lt. Gov. Newsom and Giffords Law Center filed their brief, a federal judge in San Diego ruled in favor of a temporary delay said California could not enforce the large capacity magazine ban until a final decision can be made.By contrast, in a separate ruling, Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee based in Sacramento, rejected arguments against the magazine ban after thoroughly evaluating each of the gun lobby’s arguments and explaining why they were likely to fail. Judge Shubb specifically noted that the loophole in California law that previously allowed for possession of large capacity magazines meant that “there was no way for law enforcement to determine which magazines were ‘grandfathered’ and which were illegally transferred or modified to accept more than 10 rounds[.]”Judge Shubb noted that the stated objective of the large capacity magazine ban is to reduce the incidence and harm of mass shootings and observed that “there can be no serious argument that this is not a substantial government interest, especially in light of several recent high-profile mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines,”including the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, the 2011 Arizona shooting involving then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
Similar efforts to overturn large capacity magazine bans have been roundly rejected by federal appellate courts across the US, and the Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over California) recently rejected the gun lobby’s efforts to enjoin Sunnyvale’s local large capacity magazine ban.”
This Proposition 63 provision is currently subject to litigation. Additional information on the status of this lawsuit can be found at: http://ltg.ca.gov/news.2017.10.20_Proposition63CourtBrief.html
Do you believe any of the laws, or proposed laws, in this article were actually passed to make the community or safer? Or are they simply a form of backdoor gun control? Share your answers in the comment section.