Take our short survey. Share you opinion in the comment section.The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!’s blog, “The Shooter’s Log,” is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!
March 7, 2014
March 1, 2014
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Cheaper Than Dirt! Inc., its employees or management. Analysis performed within this article are only examples and for informational purposes intended to promote an open exchange of information. Publication of any assertions made within this article or analysis are solely those of the author and in no way should be construed to reflect the position or policy of Cheaper Than Dirt!
They say you can tell when politicians are lying because their lips are moving. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, but you can certainly tell the deceptiveness of a bill by the creativity of the naming. Instead of describing the benefits of the bill, most often the name belies its true meaning. Do the majority of Americans consider the Affordable Care Act to be affordable? Did the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Assault Weapons Ban) protect anything more than a couple of liberal politician’s careers? Has the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act kept anyone safer? Did it keep any guns out of the hands of the mentally ill as it claims? Of course not.
Politicians come up with catchy names to push their bills past low information voters. Sadly, these voters are often other politicians. The latest attempt to trample the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is happening in Rhode Island. It may be the smallest state in the Union, however, it is seeking to be the biggest abuser of its citizens’ inalienable rights to bear arms.
Representative Joseph S. Almeida (Democrat) recently introduced the deceptively titled “Safe Firearms Act” (H 7583). After all, who would vote for the Un-Safe Firearms Act? In doing so, Rep. Almeida is seeking to up the ante with a more restrictive law than either New York or Connecticut by banning the purchase of “assault weapons.” Of course, The Shooters Log‘s readers are far too smart for that. We understand the definition of assault weapons and already know that when politicians use the term, they are misrepresenting the meaning. Surprisingly, so does Almeida! He does not just throw the term around in a careless manner like Schumer or Feinstein. No, instead he redefines the term to suit his agenda.
According to Rep. Almeida, selective fire rifles, pistols and shotguns can all be assault weapons. .223s? Sure, in fact any centerfire cartridge, but Almeida does not stop there. He wants to classify rimfire calibers as assault weapons as well. But it is not only the weapon that will land you in the pokey. For instance, if you had an otherwise legal weapon such as a S&W M&P15-22, but also owned a folding stock—even if it was not attached to the firearm—you are guilty of a Class C Felony! Possess—regardless of whether or not it is attached to the weapon—a flash suppressor or thumbhole stock, flare launcher, folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip that mounts under any portion of the action, or a host of other accessories or cosmetic features and you are suddenly a felon in Rhode Island.
The law is so absurd it is impossible to include all of it here, but lets just say it sinks to the level of outlawing pistols with any type of barrel shroud that allows the shooter “to fire the weapon without being burned.” Somehow that suddenly makes the pistol more dangerous? Sans shroud but wearing a glove and suddenly your are less dangerous? Or would then conclude you were guilty of owning an assault glove? Of course, Rep. Almeida also includes gun control lingo outlawing standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds. By the way, if your pistol weighs 50 ounces or more, unloaded, it is an assault weapon… Here is a link to the proposed legislation.
If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. Registration requirements? Connecticut has mandated a registration for certain firearms and magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. Of the estimated 375,000-400,000 firearms deemed “assault weapons” by the State; more than 325,000 remain “undocumented.” Only about 50,000 were registered. The requirement to register standard capacity magazines faired no better with less than 40,000 of an estimated 2 million standard capacity magazines being registered with the state. What can you conclude from those numbers other than… good luck?
However, it would seem that Rep. Almeida learned from New York’s earlier mistake and included language to exempt a handful of police, corrections, military and “other specified organizations and individuals.” Among these latter groups are manufacturers. Rhode Island does not want to lose any potential revenue to the State’s coffers. Too bad it is not as concerned about the rights of its citizens and their welfare.