Democrats in Michigan are pursuing a new gun control measure that would prohibit the sale and production of what they refer to as “assault weapons,” although the term’s meaning is ambiguous and imprecise.
State Representative Jeffery Pepper’s introduction of HB 6544, which would outright outlaw the sale and production of “assault weapons” starting in 2024, was announced by Michigan House Democrats on December 1.
According to Pepper and the House Democrats, this bill is required to stop the national epidemic of gun violence.
“If the federal government won’t reinstate the automatic weapons ban that drastically reduced gun violence in the ’90s,” Pepper said, “then it’s time we take it into our own hands.”
Of course, the obvious question is: Exactly what do the Michigan House Democrats mean when they refer to a “assault weapon”? Since all weapons are designed to attack, the phrase “assault weapon” appears remarkably repetitive.
What weapons would be permitted for citizens to own and which ones would be prohibited under the proposed legislation?
Unfortunately, as it is currently written HB 6544 is incredibly vague and loose with its definition of an “assault weapon.” According to the bill, an “assault weapon” is defined as “a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has 1 or more of the following characteristics.”
In a nutshell, these characteristics include any grip or shroud that allows the shooter to hold the weapon with the non-trigger hand, or a folding or telescopic stock.
These attributes are not particularly well defined, and it appears like the House Democrats are just repeating talking points about certain aspects of guns that make people afraid of CNN or MSNBC.
As a result, this legislation is extremely risky since it may allow the Democrats to outlaw more firearms than first appear to be covered.
One can contend that the definition of “assault weapon” stated in the bill prohibits the use of any firearm that could be held with two hands.
The fact that a rifle with a detachable magazine and the potential to add an attachment would encompass any number of lawfully purchased guns in America is equally unsettling. That is hardly a stringent list of requirements.
Who knows how many weapons the Democrats could claim come within the restrictions outlined in this measure with such a broad definition?
But aside from the reality that this idea is unconstitutional and totalitarian, there is also the plain fact that history has repeatedly demonstrated that these gun restriction measures do not actually reduce gun violence.
Measure 114, which prohibits magazines that hold more than ten rounds, orders police departments to compile biometric databases of gun licenses, and devotes money toward firearms training, was approved by Oregon voters in the elections held last month.
Several sheriffs in the state immediately denounced this bill, claiming that it did not address the real causes of gun violence and diverted precious police resources away from combating crime to regulating the conduct of law-abiding residents.
However, despite having some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, several states, including Illinois and New York, have seen a rise in mass shootings over the past year as a result of criminals finding inventive ways to circumvent the state’s regulations.
The reality is that merely making some types of firearms illegal would not put an end to mass massacres. Despite the fact that these weapons are prohibited, criminals will nonetheless find a method to use them.
The underlying cultural issues that motivate people to use guns as a form of self-defense must be addressed if we are to effectively address the problem of gun violence in our country. Punishing law-abiding folks by limiting their Second Amendment rights merely draws attention away from these problems rather than resolving them.