Purposely Vague Language in New Gun Rules Could Outlaw all Guns

The best way to get what you want out of a law is to make it vague. A vague law is a law that needs to be interpreted. Since no one is devoid of presuppositions, the person or persons interpreting the law will interpret it in terms of his or her worldview.

Look what our politicians have done with the phrase “general welfare.” Even though the Constitution is specific about what constitutes general welfare (there’s a semicolon after the phrase with a list that follows defining the meaning of the phrase), lawmakers have turned it into a wax nose to be shaped by wealth confiscation and wealth redistribution policies.

Now we come to the Dianne Feinstein bill that would allow numerous firearms. The descriptions of these guns, if interpreted by judges who are anti-Second Amendment advocates, could spell disaster for gun ownership.

Consider this from WND:

“Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

“He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, ‘any semiautomatic firearm which uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned.’”

What is a “semiautomatic firearm”? A semiautomatic firearm is a weapon that requires the shooter to squeeze the trigger in order to fire a bullet. One trigger pull equals one bullet fired. A full automatic weapon shoots in burst of bullets that are fired by a single squeeze of the trigger.

A rifle that shoots a single bullet with a single squeeze of the trigger is a semiautomatic weapon, and so is one that looks like an “assault weapon.” They each require the same action. One just looks more ominous than the other.

Pistols are semi-automatic weapons. A clip that holds 7 bullets requires 7 pulls of the trigger to fire all 7 bullets.

If a single shot gun is a semiautomatic weapon, then this would include pistols. Since pistols have, by definition, a “pistol grip,” then it’s possible that handguns could be banned by some court based on the planned vagaries of the law.

We know that Dianne Feinstein and other liberals would like to ban all weapons. They know they can’t do it at the present time. They are long-term strategists. They’ve been pushing for universal health care for nearly 100 years, and they finally got it. The 16th Amendment was sold as a tax only on the wealthiest among us. You’ve seen where that got us. It’s no different on gun legislation.







Comments

comments

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles.

Posted in Police State, Politics, Second Amendment Tagged with: , , , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/david.cowardin.9 David Cowardin

    If this marxist piggy’s gun ban ever does take hold it’ll be after the old battleaxis dead and gone. Frightstein and Pelosi ain’t got long before they’re dead of old age so they’ll try and take out as much of the constitution as they can in the short time they’ve got left.

  • Robert

    vague or not, an unconstitutional infringement by congress is unlawful and renders one’s own “authority” null and void. that is to say that we the people gave the federal government limited powers – for that same government to take more than what has been given makes this government rogue and operating outside the boundaries of its authority. they know that, but they hope you don’t. further, the second amendment is not the source of our right to defend ourselves; that right is inalienable. a citizen keeping and bearing arms, tanks, missiles, et al. is that person’s right – it’s inalienable. naturally one will have to meet force to limit such inalienable rights with force to keep one’s rights as history has shown and which is how this country was founded. in any case, the federal government has no right to infringe on the inalienable rights of the people; by choosing to do so, the “leaders” (i use that term as loosely as allowed), the federal government has effectively declared war on the people for they certainly are not operating under the legality of the constitution and so they are operating under their own perceived authority. when enough people figure this out, the curtains will close on their mischeviousness…