So Congressional anti-gunners now need "assurance" that shall not be infringed allows for infringement at will?

On Wednesday, Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 4269 (text not yet available), titled "To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes." The bill picked up 123 co-sponsors, all Democrats, the first day. As I said, we don't yet have the text, but Cicilline's self-satisfied press release proudly describes some of the most intolerable aspects of his Intolerable Act. Nothing terribly surprising--from the two "military features" that rendered a semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle verboten in the old federal AWB, Cicilline's atrocity would lower it to one, which would also be enough to make any semi-automatic shotgun illegal, regardless of the shotgun's magazine arrangements; etc., etc.

Like I said, nothing very surprising. The title itself, though, is kinda interesting--specifically, this part: "to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited." Now that's odd. The gun ban zealots have never, to my knowledge, acknowledged any uncertainty in the past about their contention that the Second Amendment's protection of the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms was quite limited, shall not be infringed notwithstanding. How many times have we all seen the "can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" trotted out as "proof" that the Second Amendment poses no bar to the current infringement du jour? Now, all of a sudden, they need to see the claimed legitimacy of that argument "ensured"?

But, come to think of it, how could any law provide the "assurance" that Cicilline and friends apparently need, that the Bill of Rights carries no more force than they want it to? The meaning of the Constitution doesn't change just because Congress passes a law that says it means something else now. That's, after all, kinda the point of a Constitution.

Meanwhile, just in time to express my opinion of H.R. 4269, I have this week assembled my reply to Cicilline. It looks like this:

Now first, let's get out of the way the fact that this is indeed legal, even with the 8 1/2" barrel 12 gauge slung underneath like the old "Masterkey" concept. The 12 gauge started as a Black Aces Tactical DTR, which is legal without any NFA paperwork because it never had a shoulder stock (remember, the Sig Brace doesn't count as a stock). Therefore, by the federal definition of "shotgun," which specifies that such arms are "designed to be fired from the shoulder," this is not, legally, technically, a shotgun. It's also not an "Any Other Weapon" (AOW), because the overall length (when the Sig brace is not folded) exceeds 26", and therefore the gun is not considered "concealable," as the AOW definition specifies. This, according to federal law, is simply a "firearm."

I removed the Sig brace, and clamped the top rail of the "firearm" to the bottom rail of an AR pistol (that's vitally important--mounting it on a rifle would magically convert my sweet, innocent little firearm into a wicked, evil short-barreled shotgun--and voilà--a legal, non-NFA Masterkey.

Practical? Nah--but practical isn't really my style. I've actually never tried handling it with the drums full (and actually, since the AR is chambered not for 5.56mm NATO/.223 Remington, but instead for 6.5mm Grendel, it's rather unlikely that the snail drum would feed with any kind of reliability). The double drums are mainly for the benefit of the anti-gun cud-munchers. Also, the optics and laser, mounted where they are, would probably be rather short lived under any quantity of firing. I'm working on a better, (slightly) more practical configuration.

Still, imperfect as it is, I think this build expresses my opinion about H.R. 4269 pretty well. Might even shake Cicilline's "assurance" that he can impose limits on that which shall not be infringed.

JPFO Alert: Sanders' "Middle" Ground on Guns is in Exact Center of Intolerable

Today's JPFO Alert notes that if Bernie Sanders' position in the gun rights/"gun control" debate is the "middle" he claims it to be, there's no room for "extreme" short of mandatory capital punishment for gun ownership.

Sanders' idea of the "middle" would also ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles--popularly, if inaccurately, referred to as "assault weapons"--and the "high capacity" (gun ban zealot-speak for "standard capacity") magazines that feed them. This is the "middle"? Sending people to prison for buying the most popular class of centerfire rifles in America is his idea of respecting the rights of gun owners? Prison time for buying an 11-round magazine is the "compromise" he wants to sell us? Outlawing the most useful arms for defense of one's home, one's life, one's family, and one's liberty is part of the give-and-take he proposes?

JPFO Alert: If Retired Cops Are Safer With Unlocked Guns, Why Aren't the Rest of Us?

Today's JPFO Alert Today's JPFO Alert wonders why "safety" for cops and, and for the rest of us, requires two diametrically opposed solutions.

We are told that we are to lock up our guns, "for safety." We are told that cops (and retired cops) must have unlocked guns . . . "for safety." How does once having worn a badge make what's safe for one person the exact opposite of what's safe for the next?

JPFO Alert: Will Pope Francis Disarm His Guards?

Today's JPFO Alert Today's JPFO Alert wonders if Pope Francis thinks what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

His criticism of those who invest in weapons manufacture is especially puzzling. Anyone, after all, who purchases a weapon could fairly be said to have invested in the manufacture of them. And as it turns out, the Pontifical Swiss Guard, who defend the Vatican and its most famous resident, are lavishly equipped with some pretty hefty investments in Sig-Sauer, Heckler & Koch, Steyr Mannlicher, and Glock semi-automatic handguns, personal defense weapons, assault rifles, and submachine guns, not to mention whoever manufactures the swords, halberds, and other more traditional weapons carried by his guards.

Nothing wrong with 'proudly closed minds on gun control'

Here's the thing: on some issues, there is nothing wrong with a closed mind, nor even with being proud of it. The issue of forcible citizen disarmament is a superb example. When what one is being asked (although "asked" is probably sugarcoating it) to accept is so utterly, inherently wrong that it can never, in any context, ever be anything less than evil, dismissing it out of hand is a real time saver, and closing one's mind to it means that one's mind will never be infected with that evil. With some issues, merely closing one's mind is not enough. Close it, lock it, bolt it, bar it, pile heavy things in front of the door--and wait with at least a 12-gauge ready to blast away at anything that pushes through. And then take pride in having so effectively defended one's mind from the mental affliction of "gun control." [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

JPFO Alert: Christie's Efforts to Distance Himself from Gun Ban Zealots Comically Transparent

Today's JPFO Alert notes that Christie has a lot of work to do if he plans to convince gun owners that his career-long campaign against us is over.

Christie is no friend to gun owners, and if he really expects to convince us otherwise, has little regard for our intelligence, as well.

JPFO Alert: Gun Owners Cannot Count on Courts to Right "Gun Control" Wrongs

Today's JPFO Alert notes what most of us have probably already known for quite a while: counting on the courts to protect our rights is a model for failure.

Gun rights advocates must decide how much longer we are willing to play a rigged game, in which all the government's checks and balances have united in favor of government over the people, leaving the government both unchecked and unbalanced. If we grant the black-robed high priests of American "justice" the role of ultimate arbiters of what our rights are, we have surrendered any claim on our own power to tell the government--our servants--what they are.