President Joe Biden faced continued backlash for controversial remarks that he made on Wednesday about Americans who purchase firearms as a safeguard against a tyrannical government, with critics noting that Biden’s remarks counter the narrative that Democrats and the media have pushed about the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.
“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government.”
“Well, the tree of liberty is not [watered with] the blood of patriots, what’s happened is that there never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”
Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald responded to a tweet that showed Biden’s remarks from Wednesday next to remarks that he made earlier this year when responding to the riot. Biden said regarding the riot, “Our democracy is under unprecedented assault.”
“You cannot believe both of these things to be true simultaneously,” journalist Drew Holden wrote.
“Precisely,” Greenwald responded. “Biden’s mockery of the citizenry – you think you can threaten the US Govt with guns? You need F-15s and nukes for that – shows how moronic is the depiction of a few hundred MAGA protesters as a threat to the stability of history’s most militarized and armed government.”
Editor’s note: You could absolutely buy a cannon in that day and age. Biden is, again, a liar.
A U.S. federal appeals court on Monday put on hold a judge’s ruling this month to overturn California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons.
A three-judge panel in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s June 4 order, after California officials had appealed the federal judge’s decision to strike down the ban on assault-style weapons.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had appealed against the decision to overturn the ban, said the state’s assault weapons laws would remain in effect while appellate proceedings continue.
“We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws,” Bonta said on Twitter.
On June 10, the Department of Justice (DOJ) posted, in the Federal Register, a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comment, concerning firearms such as AR-15 pistols equipped with “stabilizing braces.” To bolster its position, the DOJ cited the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
Before explaining how Heller comes to bear in this instance, some background is in order. Stabilizing braces were developed in 2013 to help wounded former military servicemen and other disabled Americans use, one-handed, AR-15s and similar firearms equipped with a barrel under 16 inches in length to reduce weight. But there’s a rub.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) doesn’t define “pistol” or “handgun,” but it defines “rifle” as a firearm that, among other things, is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.” Furthermore, it requires federal registration and a $200 tax for any “rifle” less than 26 inches in overall length or having a barrel less than 16 inches in length, commonly referred to as a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR).
Because AR-15s and similar firearms are usually rifles, with shoulder stocks so they may be “fired from the shoulder,” the question has been whether such a firearm, having never been assembled as a rifle, but instead having been assembled from the outset as a pistol using a stabilizing brace instead of a stock, and a barrel shorter than 16 inches, would be considered a handgun or an SBR.
In 2014, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) issued a letter to a manufacturer of stabilizing braces, stating, “[W]e have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR … Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.”
In 2015, the agency issued a seemingly contradictory letter, stating that “the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor ‘intended’ to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device,” implying that a firearm so configured might be subject to the NFA. In 2017, the BATFE issued a private letter to a brace manufacturer saying the 2015 letter had been incorrect.
We know Joe Biden wants to confiscate guns. He’s open about it. He wants a ban on so-called assault weapons but also high-capacity magazines, an equally moronic term. His vice president, who is getting kicked in the teeth over the border crisis in what’s turning out to be a disastrous visit to Guatemala, also said that she would issue an executive order to ban these firearms. That’s not legal, but when has that ever-stopped Democrats from waging their war on the Second Amendment. The magazine limits don’t just apply to rifles, but also handguns, meaning the millions would become felons under the Democrats’ gun confiscation scheme. We all know the endgame, but they don’t have the legislative majorities to do so. Biden is then taking to tweaking current regulations through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It’s through this avenue that his scheme to turn millions into felons is being planned as we speak. It’s significant for sure, with many in the industry calling it the largest gun registration and confiscation scheme in American history.