“Democrats push ban on ‘deceptively colored firearms’ amid flurry of lame duck gun bills,” The Midwesterner reported Wednesday. “Designates illegal any firearm other than black, brown, dark grey, dark green, silver, steel, or nickel in color.”
Senate Bill 1134 would amend the Michigan penal code to make “An individual who violates this section or any rule promulgated under this section … guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $500.00.”
This insulting and oppressively matriarchal assault on both the First Amendment right to expression and the Second Amendment right to arms is the “brainchild” of Democrat Senator Dayna Polehanski, who can get away with such tyrannical acts of legislative sabotage because she’s a “safe seat” Democrat. Per Ballotpedia, she won Michigan State Senate District 5 in 2022 by 61.1% to 38.9% over her Republican opponent, and she’ll be in office until 2027.
Forget that she’s inventing a “solution” in search of a problem, and a Google search for terms like “homicide with ‘colored firearms’” yields no relevant (but unintentionally racist) results from Google, and even if they did would not justify depriving gun owners of their rights under threat of a “law” enforcement response and punishment. Much like the Clinton “assault weapon” ban, it’s entirely cosmetic. And it’s not even an original idea, which, considering it comes from a Democrat Moms Demand Action endorsee is hardly surprising.
The impulse to ban them goes back years ago to then-New York City Mayor and perennial Everytown billionaire money man Michael Bloomberg holding a press conference where he denounced “red and yellow DuraCoat-painted guns … saying anyone who sold them was ‘sick’ and ‘twisted’.” That, in turn, per a 2008 Daily News report, prompted Steve Lauer of Lauer Custom Weaponry to push back by “market[ing] a line of bright colors called the ‘Bloomberg Collection,’ …[and] introduce… a bright-red shade called ‘Furious Mike.’”
The bill is not without exemptions, notably for “an individual who owns or possesses it on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section,” and, of course, for “Only Ones” of:
“The United States… This state or another state… A department, an agency, or a political subdivision of the United States, this state, or another state… A member of an entity or organization… while engaged in the course of that member’s duties with that entity or organization or while going to or returning from those duties.”
How the problem of “deceptively colored firearms” goes away when in the hands of someone with a badge is not explained. Neither is the rational basis for “grandfathering” colored guns for one group of citizens, but not providing equal protection for individuals who got theirs “after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section,” but instead dictating that “no later than 14 days after receipt” they’ll be required to either surrender it “to the department of state police for disposal” or “Modif[y] the deceptively colored firearm or covert firearm so that it is no longer a deceptively colored firearm or covert firearm and cannot be readily converted into one.”
Hellbound and Down 