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.