XPost: alt.education.research, alabama.politics, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights
XPost: ca.politics

Did you know the Winchester 1903, a .22-caliber rifle that has a
10-round tube magazine, is a “semi-automatic assault rifle”? In
fact, every semi-automatic rifle is a “semi-automatic assault
rifle.” So says Michael Bloomberg, and he is poised to turn his
definition into law.

The gun-banner epithet “assault weapon” has always been a
deceit. Unlike other firearm terms—such as “handgun” or “bolt
action”—the phrase “assault weapon” has never had a fixed
meaning. Instead, the phrase is a euphemism for “as many
firearms as we can restrict, based on current political
conditions.” Back in 1989, then-Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.,
introduced an “assault weapons” bill to ban only nine specific
models of firearms. But that was what the prohibitionists call
“a good first step.” Now, Bloomberg and his allies are pushing
an “assault rifle” ballot initiative in Washington state that
would apply to every semi-automatic rifle in existence.

Bloomberg and his spokespeople claim to support the Second
Amendment, saying they simply oppose “assault weapons.” But then
they try to classify any semi-automatic rifle as an “assault
weapon,” regardless of caliber, magazine capacity or anything
else.

Gun-banners in nations such as Australia and Great Britain have
already succeeded in outlawing all semi-automatic long guns. In
the United States, a big step in that direction is this year’s
Washington state ballot measure 1639.

Bloomberg and his spokespeople claim to support the Second
Amendment, saying they simply oppose “assault weapons.” But then
they try to classify any semi-automatic rifle as an “assault
weapon,” regardless of caliber, magazine capacity or anything
else. Under Bloomberg’s proposed Washington law, semi-automatic
rifles or handguns of any type would be subjected to onerous new
restrictions and taxes, thus discouraging their possession and
lawful use.

One objective of the Bloomberg strategy is stigmatization of gun
owners. Maybe you just bought a Benelli R1, or your father gave
you his Ruger 10/22, or you cherish your great-grandfather’s
Remington 8. You, like all owners of semi-automatic rifles, are
being stigmatized as an “assault rifle” owner—the kind of person
who owns “weapons of war” that have no place in civil society.

This spring, Bloomberg organized rallies all over the country to
denounce people who own such “assault rifles.” The hatred was
palpable. Most of the people at those rallies knew almost
nothing about firearms, and Bloomberg’s employees worked hard to
make them loathe you because you own a “semi-automatic assault
rifle.”

The Washington state scheme provides context to Bloomberg’s
propaganda campaign, which employs boycotts, threats, libel and
mob hysteria against anyone having anything to do with what they
consider “assault rifles.”

Perhaps you thought that the hate groups were only talking about
AR-15s, Mini-14s or other firearms invented in the past six
decades. To the contrary—every semi-automatic rifle ever made,
going all the way back to the first Winchester in 1903, is an
“assault rifle,” according to Bloomberg. The kind of people who
hunt with them, collect them, sell them or make them are evil
people who worship guns and don’t care about children’s lives.
So say the mobs chanting the Bloomberg slogans. If the
Washington proposal passes in November, individuals who wish to
acquire a semi-automatic rifle will also have to waive the
confidentiality of their medical records. The act of applying to
purchase “shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and
written request that the health care authority, mental health
institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an
inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant
to the applicant’s eligibility to purchase.”

The Bloomberg groups pushing the defamatory initiative call
themselves “Safe Schools Safe Communities” and the “Alliance for
Gun Responsibility.” That’s like a group that wants to restrict
access to books calling itself the “Alliance for Literacy.” The
groups are funded by not only Bloomberg, but also by his
billionaire allies, including former Microsoft Corp. executive
Paul Allen.

Under the Bloomberg proposal, nobody, of any age, could ever
acquire a “semi-automatic assault rifle” (that is, any semi-
automatic rifle) without first passing a gun safety course, the
content of which would be controlled by the government. So if,
for example, you have been a certified hunter-safety instructor
for the last 25 years, that still isn’t good enough. You can’t
even borrow a semi-automatic rifle without first enrolling in
and passing the government-controlled class at least every five
years.

Further, no semi-automatic rifle sales or loans will be allowed
without prior permission from the local police chief or sheriff.
In Washington, such permission has historically been required
for handguns, but not for long guns. If background check records
are incomplete, local officials can place a 30-day hold on the
sale, and that hold can be renewed indefinitely by a court.
There is no specific requirement that the person subject to the
hold be notified or have an opportunity to present his or her
side of the case to the judge.

Under current law, those visiting Washington can purchase long
guns. But the Bloomberg initiative would forbid them from
purchasing semi-automatic rifles.

Also under the Bloomberg initiative, law enforcement would be
required to keep detailed registration records, including the
serial number, make and model of every semi-automatic rifle that
is sold or lent with their authorization, as well as information
about the buyer.

As experience demonstrates, registration records collected in
one year can then be used for confiscation in future years.
That’s precisely what occurred in Australia, whose gun control
scheme is often touted by gun prohibition lobbies as the model
we should be following. The national gun confiscation law in
Australia was introduced shortly after the Australian anti-gun
lobbies had succeeded in imposing gun registration in all
Australian states.

Think it can’t happen in the United States? The same already has
occurred in New York City. Long-gun registration there was
enacted in 1967. Later, starting with Mayor David Dinkins and
continuing ever since, the city’s gun registration lists have
been employed for gun confiscation. When Bloomberg was mayor, he
oversaw the confiscation of all long guns that held more than
five rounds—a list which included semi-automatics, as well as
those with pump actions and other actions.

If the Washington proposal passes in November, individuals who
wish to acquire a semi-automatic rifle will also have to waive
the confidentiality of their medical records. The act of
applying to purchase “shall constitute a waiver of
confidentiality and written request that the health care
authority, mental health institutions, and other health care
facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement
agency, information relevant to the applicant’s eligibility to
purchase.”

Handgun and semi-automatic rifle owners would be subject to
continuing reverification of their eligibility to possess
firearms. According to the initiative, the verification must
take place “on an annual or more frequent basis.” So at least
once a year—and possibly many more times, according to the
language of the initiative—the government could harvest and
store the medical records of owners of handguns and semi-
automatic rifles. To the contrary—every semi-automatic rifle
ever made, going all the way back to the first Winchester in
1903, is an “assault rifle,” according to Bloomberg.

Suppose you promptly get permission from the local police or
sheriff to purchase a handgun or semi-automatic rifle. You still
can’t take the gun home: There will be a minimum waiting period
of 10 business days (that is, at least two full weeks, depending
on holidays) before you are allowed to take possession of your
gun. It’s too bad if you’re a stalking victim in need of
immediate protection, or if you’re a hunter who wants to replace
a gun that broke in the middle of a hunting trip.

If you’re under 21, you might have to wait a lot longer, as
Bloomberg is committed to eradicating the Second Amendment
rights of young adults. His initiative would prohibit
individuals 18 to 20 years of age from acquiring a semi-
automatic rifle.

Bloomberg’s prohibitory rationale could also be applied to many
other groups. For instance, males commit homicide at a much
higher rate than do females, but that does not justify a gun ban
for all males.

The preamble to the Bloomberg initiative says, “Research
indicates that the brain does not fully mature until a later
age.” The current scientific view is that full development of
the prefrontal cortex is not completed until about the age of
25. So while Bloomberg currently aims to disarm 18- to 20-year-
olds, his initiative actually sets the stage for limiting gun
ownership to those over 25.

Under Bloomberg’s proposed plan, every semi-automatic rifle
transfer would incur a $25 tax. This includes lending a semi-
automatic to your brother-in-law for a weekend hunting trip.
When your brother-in-law returns the rifle to you, there’s
another $25 tax. Worse, this tax is indexed to inflation,
meaning it would automatically increase as the inflation rate
does.

The proceeds from this tax must then be used to administer the
gun control program—for example, hiring employees to collect all
new medical records about those who own handguns or semi-
automatic rifles.

Of course, gun stores can’t provide services for free. When they
conduct private transfers, as is now required in Washington
state under a 2014 Bloomberg initiative, they charge fees for
the time required to fill out all the paperwork. Consequently,
the simple act of lending a firearm to a relative for the
weekend and then having that firearm returned could easily cost
$100 or more in taxes and fees.

Under ballot measure 1639, gun stores would also be ordered to
disseminate false anti-gun propaganda to firearm buyers. The
language on an application form to buy a handgun or a semi-
automatic rifle would state: “Caution: The presence of a firearm
in the home has been associated with an increased risk of death
to self and others, including an increased risk of suicide,
death during domestic violence incidents, and unintentional
deaths to children and others.”

It is true that in the homes of law-abiding citizens, firearms
do increase “the risk of death … to others.” Namely, it is the
risk of death to home invaders, stalkers and other violent
criminals.

Social science studies do show that when a violent domestic
abuser has access to a gun, the abuser is more likely to kill
someone. But domestic abusers—even those who have been convicted
of just a misdemeanor—are already prohibited from possessing a
firearm. That has been federal law for more than two decades.
The studies also show that in the home of a domestic violence
victim, such as a woman who has escaped from an abuser, the
presence of a firearm is not associated with criminal homicide.

Under current Washington law, the application form for a handgun
purchase includes the notification “that local laws and
ordinances on firearms are pre-empted by state law and must be
consistent with state law.” This accurately informs gun owners
about their legal rights. The Bloomberg initiative would
eliminate that notification requirement. Of course, preventing
gun owners from knowing their legal rights is a key strategy of
the Bloomberg organizations. Under ballot measure 1639, gun
stores would also be ordered to disseminate false anti-gun
propaganda to firearm buyers.

Because of the extremism of ballot measure 1639, Bloomberg’s
team has even illegally concealed the contents of the initiative
from petition signers. In violation of Washington state law, the
paid petition-gatherers did not allow signers to see the full
text of the initiative, including the provision that would
remove current language in state law. Even the website for
Bloomberg’s “Alliance for Gun Responsibility”—proponents of the
measure—refuses to post the full text of the initiative.
Instead, website visitors are merely offered an incomplete and
deceptive summary of the initiative.

There is no doubt that Bloomberg and other malefactors of great
wealth will spend massively to fool Washington voters about
what’s really in the measure. And it is doubtful that most of
the media will do a good job of fully informing the public.

Yet it’s possible to beat the 11th-richest man in the world if
enough grassroots civil rights activists work hard to educate
the public, including their friends and neighbors. In 2016, for
example, the voters of Maine narrowly rejected a Bloomberg
ballot measure.

Ultimately, the side with the most money does not always win
elections. The entire financial resources of the NRA are a
pittance compared to Bloomberg’s personal wealth of $50 billion,
let alone the cumulative wealth of Bloomberg’s network among the
ultra-rich. Yet the NRA uses its limited resources effectively.
If the NRA has what it needs to get the job done, it’s possible
that Bloomberg could be defeated in Washington.

If not, then expect copies of the Washington law to be
introduced all over the country, just as Bloomberg’s previous
victories in the far West have been used as models elsewhere.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180901/sneak-attack-on-
washington-state
 

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)