Brady Center on AW bans
They didn't waste much time. (pdf)
Interesting. Nice pictures, but did anyone notice that almost all of the weapons pictured are highly restricted by NFA as short barreled rifles or destructive devices and or still restricted by import bans that have nothing to do with the 2004 sunset. Even the reference to threaded barrels and silencers states that silencers are illegal (sic). I don’t even know what the Tec 9 status is, but I haven’t seen one for sale in 14 years.
And although DC v Heller mentioned “dangerous and unusual” weapons, it would be hard for me to believe that an AR15 is unusual.
Posted by: Chuck at November 23, 2008 08:35 AM
Jim Zumbo gave them plenty of ammunition for this arguement with his comments. What a jerk.
Posted by: Jim K at November 23, 2008 12:05 PM
If you go through their numerous anecdotes, the majority of them were never covered under the federal AWB anyway.
Posted by: thirdpower at November 23, 2008 09:00 PM
Now I want a TEC-9. Never wanted one before, but if the Brady Campaign hates it and civilian ownership of one pisses them off, then I want one.
And their absurd rhetoric and disingenuousness is too vast and deep to even get into a line-by-line analysis. It just makes me sick to read anything they write.
E.g.: the assault weapons ban "was circumvented by many gun manufacturers." Is that so? I don't think so. The law said you couldn't manufacture or sell guns with certain features, so they eliminated those features. I'd call that COMPLYING with the law, not "circumventing" it.
And good lord, how long will we have to read and hear them say that pistol grips are to allow you to "spray fire from the hip position." I'm starting to see the RCOB. These people clearly have never tried doing that. A pistol grip does anything BUT facilitate hip-firing. Try holding it that way and see how you have to contort your wrist to hold the pistol grip while keeping the rifle at your hip. I note they cite no source of authority for this ridiculous, absurd and patently false assertion - other than maybe Rambo movies or something.
Also - I haven't read it in detail, but it doesn't look like they made any effort whatsoever to document the individual firearms used in the incidents described. Were they produced before, during or after the AWB was in place? They list a whole incidents that occurred after the AWB expired, but what if the shooter was using an "assault weapon" manufactured in compliance with the AWB?
The whole thing is one massive distortion and is nothing more than misdirection and more of their disingenuous attack on firearm manufacturers. If they really want to "prevent gun violence" as their name indicates, why don't they focus their efforts on the criminal elements who misuse firearms?
They make my physically ill. I really do feel nauseated after reading that.
Posted by: Bill at November 24, 2008 08:35 AM
As far as I know, unless the markings on my "arsenal" are incorrect, none of them were produced in Mass.
Same garbage to feed to the same sheep as last time.
Bet they'd rather get shot 3 times with a 7.62x39 than once with a bolt action .30-06.
Posted by: Tom at November 24, 2008 11:39 AM
I don't care if a hundred percent of the pencil neck sheep support an AW ban , I say MOLON LABE !
Posted by: The Mechanic at November 24, 2008 05:56 PM