Bad ideas never seem to die

From The Conservative Voice:

The crusade to ban “assault weapons” is back - and bigger than before.

The new incarnation comes in the form of HR1022, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). More than just picking up were the expired ban left off, McCarthy’s bill is much more ambitious. While the first version only singled out 16 specific firearms, HR1022 names 65. More indirectly, though, it covers perhaps hundreds more.

For starters, HR1022 would ban: a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

With this language, McCarthy and her supporters know that all they need is a sympathetic administration and they are off to the races. However, this is a poor excuse for proper legislation. What it really amounts to is the authorization to make pure judgment calls, granted in perpetuity. Just about every pistol suitable for self-defense has possible law enforcement applications. Indeed, a gun capable of stopping a violent attacker in short order is much appreciated by those both with and without badges. (Regardless of what people think about guns, this sort of arbitrary power is alarming. What would McCarthy have said if the religious right had proposed giving John Ashcroft the power to decide what was obscene or pornographic?)

Intended purpose alone is not enough to keep a firearm off the banned list. HR1022 also targets cosmetic features, such as barrel shrouds:

The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

Got all that? Neither do I. The practical implications are even more difficult to discern. Since when did barrel shrouds take such prominence as a public safety issue? Are communities under siege from shroud-wielding gangs?

More importantly, should it even matter? The traditional, if loose, definition of an “assault rifle” goes back to the grandfather of them all – the German MP44 Sturmgewehr. Its features included selective fire, an intermediate size round (bigger than a pistol cartridge, but smaller than a full-sized rifle round), and a large capacity magazine.

In other words, pistol grips, forward grips, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, and all the other features mentioned in HR1022 are irrelevant. Cosmetic features do not have any bearing in classifying firearms. The term “assault weapon” has been distorted and politicized for emotional effect, which allows gun banners to cast a wide net.

Wide enough, in fact, to single out rifles like the M-1 Garand. This is the weapon your grandfather may have used in WWII. Is it deadly? You bet. Accurate? By all accounts, yes. Is it an “assault weapon?” Perhaps for unfortunate German or Japanese soldiers in 1944, but not by modern standards. (The M-1 is also a curious target for HR1022 because the bill allows an exemption for antiques: there will have to come a time when the venerable rifle qualifies as such.)

Undaunted by such flawed logic, McCarthy makes a contorted effort to allow for future leeway with this gem:

…and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event

Priceless. That’s like saying a football may or may not be a sporting item just because you can play football with it.

Too clever by a half this McCarthy and company.

Of course the law and the cretin who penned it are too stupid to require commentary. We can all have a good laugh at this because there is absolutely no chance of this passing. In fact it will never even come up for a vote on the House floor. However it does show us where the gun grabbers want to go.

As I said, this doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing this congress. But what about after 2008? What if there was a virulently anti-gun president in the White House, you know someone like Rudolph Giuliani or Hillary Clinton? What then?

Fred, get off your ass and get in the race!