I’d call it a springing ban. That is, the bill has language that basically defines a gas-operated firearm to captures almost every such firearm. Further, the “banned” list isn’t in existence; it WILL “spring” forth later, as defined by the BATFE.
Here is the actual bill:
https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/gosafe_bill_text.pdf
‘‘(40) The term ‘gas-operated’, with respect to a semi-automatic firearm, means any firearm that harnesses or traps a portion of the high-pressure gas from a fired cartridge to cycle the action using—
‘‘(A) a long stroke piston, where gas is vented from the barrel to a piston that is mechanically fixed to the bolt group and moves to cycle the action;
‘‘(B) a short stroke piston, where gas is vented from the barrel to a piston that moves separately from the bolt group so that the energy is imparted through a gas piston to cycle the action;
‘‘(C) a system that traps and vents gas from ei ther the barrel or the chamber to directly strike or impinge the bolt, bolt carrier, or slide assembly, to unlock and cycle the action;
‘‘(D) a hybrid system that combines elements of a system described in subparagraph (C) with a sys tem described in subparagraph (A) or (B) to capture gas vented from the barrel to cycle the action;
‘‘(E) a blowback-operated system that directly utilizes the expanding gases of the ignited propellant powder acting on the cartridge case to drive the breechblock or breech bolt rearward; or
‘‘(F) a recoil-operated system that utilizes the recoil force to unlock the breech bolt and then to complete the cycle of extracting, ejecting, and re- loading.
In addition….
‘‘(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (4), it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manu- facture, transfer, receive, or possess, in or affecting inter- state or foreign commerce, a firearm, device, or combina- tion of parts described in subparagraphs (A) through (H), knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that—
‘‘(A) the firearm is included on the list of pro- hibited gas-operated semi-automatic firearms de- scribed in section 935(a);
Skip down further….
‘935‘(a) DETERMINATION OF PROHIBITED FIREARMS.— For purposes of carrying out section 922(v), not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Bu- reau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, shall publish, and update, a list of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce that are subject to the prohibition in section 922(v).
Put it all together, and basically if passed virtually every gun that uses gas to cycle could be banned by the BATFE.
Ping for your consideration.
No.
Come and Take It, Agnes!
Leftist governments have killed more of their own citizens in the last 100 years than people killed by guns by criminals. Perhaps he should introduce a bill that would ban leftist politicians.
King can GFY.
Unconstitutional...as has been made clear by SCOTUS.
In fact all law abiding citizens can be disarmed and the criminals will still have guns and shoot people.
My suggestion. Everyone can open carry a gun and defend themselves without issues. Sure were are going to lose a few, but after that we will have a very polity society.
More info here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4200477/posts
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4200305/posts
😁👍
King was a liberal democrat up until 1993. That’s really about all one needs to know other than he’s a lawyer of little accomplishment.
The last democrat in Texas with a brain was Dolph Briscoe. And, there is no question in my mind that he would have switched parties in todays political environment.
That’s not going to go over well in Maine.
I have a better idea.
Let’s ban *gun free* zones and put people who are known to be mentally unstable in mental hospitals again. And do something about those posting public, online threats instead of letting the fib egg them on.
‘‘(F) a recoil-operated system that utilizes the recoil force to unlock the breech bolt and then to complete the cycle of extracting, ejecting, and re- loading.”
I like how Democrats redefine works such that they no longer mean what they use to mean, so they become illegal.
A blow-back or recoil operated semi-automatic rifle is not a gas operated semiautomatic rifle.
In the Soviet of Washington the people were conned into voting to redefine an “Assault rifle” as any semi-automatic rifle, even if it is a tubular magazine semi-automatic 22 long rifle rifle. Got to love the whole George Orwell 1984 New Speak approach to mind control.
"Maine Senator King's proposal aims to ban certain kinds of guns, limit bullet capacity (upon inspection, almost all guns could be banned)"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
To begin with, post-17th Amendment ratification Senator King's proposal would weaken the constitutionally enumerated right of the states, especially the border states, to protect themselves from invasion imo.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay [emphasis added]."
Nor does Senator King seem to understand that the states have never expressly constitutionally given to Congress the specific power to tell manufacturers how to make their products imo.
Regarding Congress telling foreign and domestic manufacturers how to build their products, "crippled" guns in this example, Justice Joseph Story had made a few example lists of commerce-related powers that, although intimately (Story's word) related to commerce, are not part of Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Story used the basic example of manufactures, manufactured products, in his lists.
"The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states [emphases added]." —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But more importantly with respect to Congress not having the power to regulate manufactures, please consider the following.
The 65th Congress seems to have respected Story indicating that Congress regulating how manufactures make their products would be an unconstitutional expansion of Commerce Clause powers, and appropriately did the following. Congress included the words manufacture and sale in a necessary amendment to the Constitution to give Congress the new power that it needed to effectively prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is evidenced by the 18th Amendment (18A).
Excerpted from 18A:
"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited [emphases added]."
The "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors guns and ammunition" language above would likewise need to be put into a new constitutional amendment in order for federal Democrats and RINOs to justify their vote-buying attempts to force citizens to buy "crippled" guns and limit ammo purchases, just as 18A effectively limited what people could drink.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.