Tag: assault weapons ban

Democrats Demand “Assault Weapons” Ban After Trans Mass Shooting In Minneapolis

In the US, gun deaths are often the focus of progressive and international criticism, with claims that the nation is a wellspring of violence and murder that could be solved simply by banning firearms.  The disdain of the political left for the 2nd Amendment is no secret and their efforts to erase gun rights from the Constitution is a constant point of contention within American society.  

Of course, this means that Democrats are required to ignore every other contributing factor to any shooting and deflect when they are confronted with inconvenient truths.  Leftists are, once again, attempting to redirect public discourse as yet another trans shooter has hit the news feeds.  The Minneapolis killer is one of at least five active shooters since 2018 that were confirmed as transgender. 

Multiple other active shooter events have taken place in which the trans status of the killers was suspected but never revealed by authorities (authorities tried to hide Audrey Hale’s trans status and her manifesto, for example).

In the case of the Robert Westman, a male posing as a female, notes from a manifesto and other evidence indicates that the trans ideology was central to his decision to murder two children and injure 17 others at a Christian school.  It was the direct inspiration for the attack.

However, Democrat leaders and media figures like former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki argue otherwise.  They claim that the availability of “assault rifles” is the real cause, not the insane political philosophy that ruled over Westman’s every waking moment.  Psaki shed alligator tears for the children of the Church of the Annunciation, while simultaneously denying that the trans ideology had anything to do with it and blaming conservatives for not supporting a firearms ban.

Keep reading

Why ‘You Don’t Need That for Hunting’ Should Never Fly

Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about so-called assault weapons. The shooting earlier this week in a Manhattan office building by a gunman wielding one was always going to spark such a debate.

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard someone, either now or in the past, use the phrase, “You don’t need that to hunt deer.” They might be referring to the type of weapon, the magazine capacity, or anything of the sort.

For Fudds, that’s ample reason to support some gun control measure or another. After all, their old, trusty bolt-action or lever gun isn’t up for banning. They’ll keep all of their guns, so it doesn’t matter.

Doing so, however, is a terrible mistake.

First, there’s the age-old argument that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s not. I’ve talked about how it’s not countless times, and I’m just one of a legion of voices saying so.

Yet there’s another reason why this argument should be rejected outright beyond the text of the Second Amendment.

See, if we use the idea that what we need for hunting deer or other game animals is the criteria to be considered for what should be legal or not, then absolutely no firearm will survive.

Those trusty bolt-actions and lever-action guns? You don’t actually need those to hunt deer, elk, bear, or anything else. Archery exists, and really, how many mass killings do we see with those? I mean, I can only think of one, and that wasn’t even here, so sure, archery is a much safer option for hunting, and then those sniper rifles and cowboy guns can be taken off the streets where they won’t harm anyone.

After all, didn’t you guys already agree that if you don’t need it for hunting, it’s OK to ban it?

The problem with “don’t need it for hunting” is that someone will decide to ramp that up to the next degree. And, since archery equipment can be considered “arms,” they could even use that to argue that they’re not violating the Second Amendment at all with a total gun ban since you still have access to arms that can be used for hunting.

Hell, back in the day, spears were hunting weapons. Would we like to see a world where archery equipment was too cutting-edge and capable of being used for a massacre?

We can make the Second Amendment argument until we’re blue in the face. It’s absolutely true, but it doesn’t convince a lot of people predisposed to accept limits on constitutionally protected rights. What we have to do is address the problems with arguments as they’re presented, including the slippery slope on something like this.

Keep reading

Rhode Island Democrats Ban Sale, Manufacture of ‘Assault Weapons’

Rhode Island’s Democrat-run legislature passed a bill Friday banning the instate sale and manufacture of “assault weapons.”

The measure now heads to Gov. Dan McKee’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reported that state Rep. Rebecca Kislak (D) contended for the ban, suggesting it is “an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states.”

The ban “only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession.”

Gov. McKee reacted to Friday’s passage of the ban with an X post, saying: I’m proud that Rhode Island took an important step forward in protecting our communities from gun violence. I included an assault weapons ban in my budget for this very reason — and as a result, tonight we saw progress.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

On June 13, 2025, the Civil Rights Division of President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice announced the filing of an amicus brief supporting an NRA lawsuit against Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban.

The brief was announced by Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon. In a post to X, Dhillon noted, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. See you in court, Illinois.”

The amicus brief’s introduction points to Bruen (2022) and says in part:

Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other” constitutional rights. …[Bruen] (2022).

Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called “assault weapons” ban. In doing so,  Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. …[Heller] (2008).

Keep reading

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly Introduces New “Assault Weapons” Ban

Dubbed the “GOSAFE Act,” this unconstitutional bill would regulate the sale, transfer and manufacture of “gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by establishing a list and prevent modifications of so-called “prohibited firearms.”

Similar legislation has been introduced in state legislatures and has even been signed into law by Colorado Governor Jared Polis in recent weeks.

According to a press release from the bill sponsor U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) the GOSAFE Act would:

Regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by:

  • Establishing a list of prohibited firearms;
  • Preventing modifications of permissible firearms;
  • Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture;
  • Preventing firearm self-assembly and manufacturing;
  • Prohibiting machinegun conversion devices;
  • Limit high-capacity ammunition devices;

This legislation is certainly more restrictive than what even California and New York have on the books regarding semi-automatic firearms.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of the Illinois ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

A federal judge in Illinois recently issued a permanent injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban, deeming it inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) “is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined,” U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn wrote in Barnett v. Raoul, which combines several challenges to the law, on Friday. “The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.”

McGlynn imposed a 30-day stay on his injunction to allow an appeal that seems likely to succeed. Last year in Bevis v. City of Naperville, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against PICA that McGlynn issued in April 2023. The 7th Circuit concluded that the state was likely to prevail in its defense of the law.

The 168-page opinion that McGlynn issued on Friday, which followed a bench trial, aims to reconcile the 7th Circuit’s reasoning, which was based on a distinction between “military” weapons and “Arms protected by the Second Amendment,” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. That’s a tall order. But the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which represents the plaintiffs in one of the PICA lawsuits, argues that the evidence presented at trial showed that “PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test,” which it says “conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent.”

Illinois legislators enacted PICA in January 2023, six months after a gunman used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle to kill seven people at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park. Among other things, the law bans a long list of specific rifle models, along with any semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has one or more of six listed features: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a protruding grip, a folding or adjustable stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a barrel shroud. PICA also bans “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined to include rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and pistol magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Illinois House Speaker Chris Welch (D–Westchester) said the law was aimed at “weapons of war.” That phrase suggested that Welch was talking about selective-fire rifles like those carried by U.S. soldiers, which can shoot automatically.

That was clearly not true. Such rifles are strictly regulated under federal law, which has forbidden sales of newly manufactured machine guns to civilians since 1986. PICA does not deal with machine guns; it deals with semi-automatic firearms, which fire one round per trigger pull.

Keep reading

Biden Guarantees Assault Weapons Ban Passage – ‘Not a Joke’

President Joe Biden said Tuesday on “CNN Tonight” that he will pass the assault weapon ban again before he leaves office.

Anchor Jake Tapper said, “Democratic voters approve of the job you’re doing. Democratic voters overwhelmingly like you. But one poll shows that almost two-thirds of Democratic voters want a new nominee in 2024, and the top reason they gave was your age. So what’s your message to Democrats who like you, who like what you’ve done but are concerned about your age and the demands of the job?”

Biden said, “They’re concerned whether or not I can get anything done. Name me a president in recent history that’s gotten as much done as I have in the first two years. Not a joke. The vast majority of the American people do like what I got done. And so it’s a matter of can you do the job, and I believe I can do the job. I’ve been able to do the job. I got more done. I got all this legislation passed. I ran on that. I said this is what I’m going to do, and I’m still getting it done. You know, dealing with, you know, making sure the veterans get compensated for the burn pits, making sure we’re in a situation where we finally have action on guns. By the way, I’m going to get an assault weapons ban before this is over. I’m going to get that again, not a joke.”

Keep reading

The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Didn’t Reduce Gun Violence

Do something.

This is a response—and perhaps a natural one—to a human tragedy or crisis. We saw this response in the wake of 9-11. We saw it during the Covid-19 pandemic. And we’re seeing it again following three mass shootings—in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa Oklahoma—that claimed the lives of more than 30 innocent people, including small children.

In this case, the “something” is gun control. In Canada—where no attack even occurred—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the introduction of legislation that would freeze handgun ownership across the country.

“What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” Trudeau said in a press conference.

In the United States, the rhetoric has tended to be more heated but also vague, though some specific proposals have emerged.

Over the weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris called for an all-out ban of “assault weapons.”

“We know what works on this. It includes, let’s have an assault weapons ban,” Harris told reporters in Buffalo after attending the funeral of a victim.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden, while speaking from the White House Cross Hall before a candlelit backdrop, called on Congress to pass new gun control legislation, including a ban on assault weapons.

“How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” Biden asked.

Keep reading