Bloomberg strikes again. strict anti-gun bill in Arizona.

[Paul B.]

Bloomberg was here in AZ stumping for Mark Kelly and his run for the oval office. Shortly after leaving the democrats post an extremely nasty gun control bill. The video pretty much has the details.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp-742Fge7M

Paul B.

[Aguila Blanca]

For those (like me) who prefer to read rather than try to watch someone else read and interpret, the link to the proposed bill is:

https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1625/id/2119093

It appears to be basically an assault weapon and "high capacity" magazine ban, with a grandfather clause subject to registration, background check, and annual recertification (with new annual background check).

[44 AMP]

Is there any claim about public safety made? or is this just more of the rabid "ban it ban it BAN IT!!" we have come to expect from "the usual suspects"??

I note the "you can keep it, if you keep paying us every year, and store it the way we approve of..."

I see no allowance for your heirs to inherit, save to disposition the arm.

I see govt STEALING our property (and our heirs property) without compensation, under threat of penalty of law.

about the only thing they seem to have missed in this particular piece of offal is making my Desert Eagles into "assault weapons" because they are TOO HEAVY!

You kids with your ATF approved "pistols braces" think you're not going to jail? Dream on. All it takes is ONE court ruling.

think they won't, when they feel the time is right, push that "no shotgun with a revolving cylinder" into "no revolvers"????

I suggest you all remember the story and the words of Pastor Martin Niemoeller

to update them to this issue, I would say "First, they came for the assault weapons....."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I suggest you all remember the story and the words of Pastor Martin Niemoeller

to update them to this issue, I would say "First, they came for the assault weapons....."

Too true.

Even "assault weapons" themselves are subject to "creeping incrementalism." Case(s) in point: New York and Connecticut. For many years, their definition of "assault weapon" mirrored the language of the late, unlamented federal AWB: basically, two "evil" features allowed -- and, typically, those were the detachable magazine and the protruding pistol grip. And then there were "pre-bans," which were considered legal to own irrespective of the ban, because the ban wasn't retroactive.

And then came Sandy Hook, and the New York SAFE Act and whatever Connecticut's analog to the SAFE Act was, and "assault weapon" was redefined from two evil features to one evil feature. So A lot of people who had thought they were safe owning "post-ban" configuration AR-15s (no flash hider, no bayonet lug, etcetera) woke up one morning to find that, by a stroke of the governor's pen they now owned an "assault weapon."

In Connecticut, where I was working at the time, there was a limited window of opportunity to register your newly-designated "assault weapons" (and any high capacity magazines) with the State Police. And I believe the Connecticut law makes provision for inheritance. But no new "assault weapons" can be brought into the state. If you relocate into Connecticut, you have 90 days (I think) to either sell it/them out of state, or turn them in to the police.

And those legal pre-ban AR-15s? I was talking to a friend in Connecticut over the weekend. Apparently, an agency that's part of either the AG's office or a legal branch of the legislature has determined that the State Police were wrong in telling people that pre-ban AR-15s were legal. Suddenly, they aren't.

These are real world examples of why we can't be complacent, and why nobody should sit back when "they" go after the other guy's guns. It may not affect you today but, once they've gotten all of "that" kind of firearm out of private ownership, it may be yours they come after next. All it takes is some late-night conniving and the stroke of a pen.

It should be remembered that BOTH the New York SAFE Act and the corresponding Connecticut law were enacted by the respective state legislatures under so-called "emergency" provisions that completely removed most of the checks and balances that normally apply to enacting new legislation. IIRC, that meant no public hearings, and no public comment period. "Here's what we want -- vote for it."

What was the emergency? Did they have tactical intelligence that there were large numbers of other people planning to buy guns and shoot up elementary schools? How would these so-called "emergency" laws have prevented another Sandy Hook? Nobody ever said ... the anti-gun faction in the respective legislatures just used that as a means to shove the bills through before anyone had a chance to read them and formulate cogent arguments against them.

We're all frogs, we're all in the pot together, and the anti-gunners are turning up the heat.

[SIGSHR]

"Emergency" provisions ? What next, an Enabling Act ?

[44 AMP]

"Emergency" provisions ? What next, an Enabling Act ?

Zey haf burned ze Reichstag! Ve muss DO zomthink!~!!

History seldom repeats itself exactly, but if you look there are PATTERNS...

[USNRet93]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...gth_in_Arizona

Look down at the bottom of the chart...

[ammo.crafter]

As he has done in the past a "donation" of $500,000 to very particular office holders appears to be quite the incentive.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...gth_in_Arizona

Look down at the bottom of the chart...

So AZ only has 30 State senators, and 40% of them, all but one of the senate dems, sponsored this bill?

I can find stories about all sorts of other state officials who've opposed the bill. I'd be interested to know what the one AZ dem senator who didn't sponsor the bill has to say about it.

[Don P]

Quote:
"Emergency" provisions ? What next, an Enabling Act ?
Zey haf burned ze Reichstag! Ve muss DO zomthink!~!!

History seldom repeats itself exactly, but if you look there are PATTERNS...

Had the Third Reich not disarmed the people as they marched across Europe 6 million Jews would have not been able to be herded onto trains and taken to the death camps. This is going to sound extreme to some and I am not attempting to incite a riot. If our government succeeds through law disarming the citizens its time for a repeat of 4/19/1775 thus ending the government as we know it

[heyjoe]

you cant even get people to get out and vote. you think you are going to get a revolution or civil war over gun control?

[Tom Servo]

Had the Third Reich not disarmed the people as they marched across Europe 6 million Jews would have not been able to be herded onto trains

This is a misconception that is all too common. The Third Reich didn't disarm the Jews. The Wiemar Republic instituted strong restrictions on civilian firearms ownership, and the Nazis relaxed them for everyone but the Jews.

BUT we have to remember that, even prior to World War I, it would have been VERY difficult for Jews in Germany to acquire firearms. In the prewar period, Germany was already very anti-Semitic. Gun dealers felt strong social and civic pressure not to sell to Jews. There were few, if any, firearms in Jewish possession.

As such, they never had the means to mount any kind of effective resistance. The idea that they could have done so is completely wrong.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by Don P

If our government succeeds through law disarming the citizens...

They are already succeeding through culture shift.
The law dance is just a formality at this point, meant to be an illusion for the shifted culture.
Sucks to admit it, but our nation is dying alongside our Liberty.

[rickyrick]

Washington is now trying to make it illegal to have magazines that are capable of more than 15rds outside your home, among other things

[JERRYS.]

Arizona will fall just like Virginia. apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying society. Virginians didn't think it would happen there now they are shell shocked and trying to figure out how to close the barn doors after the horses got out. Arizona will follow suit I fear, as will Texas and North Carolina.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

Arizona will fall just like Virginia. apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying society. Virginians didn't think it would happen there now they are shell shocked and trying to figure out how to close the barn doors after the horses got out. Arizona will follow suit I fear, as will Texas and North Carolina.

Yup
1984 + Idiocracy = Clown World

"But I gots me muh gunz already so I'm good"

Honk Honk

[ammo.crafter]

It's nice to have billions to hand out to press one's agenda.

Without the money, such people were called dictators.

[heyjoe]

a by product of citizens united supreme court decision. the Kochbrothers have been doing it for years...now the other side is doing it. not such a good decision after all

[Dufus]

Arizona will fall just like Virginia. apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying society. Virginians didn't think it would happen there now they are shell shocked and trying to figure out how to close the barn doors after the horses got out. Arizona will follow suit I fear, as will Texas and North Carolina.

I am not worried about Texas right now. But that doesn't mean I am closing my eyes and snoozing.

[Hal]

"USNRet93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...gth_in_Arizona

Look down at the bottom of the chart..."

Look at the top of that link..

Statistics show a close division among Arizona's 3,782,218 active registered voters as of January 2019: Republican 34.72% (1,313,023), Party-Not-Designated/Other 33.26% (1,257,995), Democratic 30.99% (1,172,216), Libertarian 0.86% (32,374), and Green 0.17% (6,610)[1][2]

All the democrats have to do is swing some of those "Not-Designated" voters over to their side & AZ goes in the books as a blue state.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Hal

"USNRet93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...gth_in_Arizona

Look down at the bottom of the chart..."

Look at the top of that link..



All the democrats have to do is swing some of those "Not-Designated" voters over to their side & AZ goes in the books as a blue state.

I did, but the AZ legislature' is solidly red...Yup, if the AZ state GOP do a 'virgina', it can change but TODAY and until November 2020, it is GOP controlled legislature and governor..
The 'unaffiliated' middle is a large voting block EVERYWHERE...

[osbornk]

Originally Posted by Dufus

I am not worried about Texas right now. But that doesn't mean I am closing my eyes and snoozing.

We in Virginia weren't worried either and look what happened.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by heyjoe

a by product of citizens united supreme court decision.

You have it exactly backwards. Nothing in the law which was struck down in the Citizens United ruling prevented a billionaire from spending as much money as they wanted to influence elections.

Here's what it did prevent: If you and 1,000 like-minded people wanted to pool your money together (AKA "form a corporation") to counter the message the billionaire is putting out it was illegal to do so prior to the election you wanted to influence. Bear in mind the genesis of the case, Citizens United is a corporation formed specifically for political advocacy. They made a movie about Hillary Clinton, which the FEC then banned from distribution prior to the Democrat primary.

The US government banned distribution of a movie because it had political content, let that sink in.

Meanwhile billionaires and political parties and politicians were completely unaffected by the campaign finance law, giving them a monopoly on political information prior to elections.

The 1st Amendment won, the people of the USA won with the SCOTUS decision. Billionaires and political parties lost.

I have yet to meet a single person opposed to the Citizens United decision who even understands what it was about.

[heyjoe]

there were political action committees before citizens united and there were individual limits on what anyone could donate to a candidate before citizens united. your explanation is simplistic and misleading. It also doesnt look to me like billionaires lost. ask virginia, colorado,washington, and oregon.

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by Dufus

I am not worried about Texas right now. But that doesn't mean I am closing my eyes and snoozing.

you better start worrying, look at what has already happened to Austin and Houston/Harris County.

Bloomberg has already paid for the nomination. Bernie is staying in it just to make his followers think he has principles, and of course to get his big payday. Biden is finished now that Obama has endorsed Bloomberg. if you think Bloomberg's multi-billion dollar pay off scheme won't buy off state politicians you're not following things very well.