Recently, this column noted that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based (naturally) group of anti-gun lawyers, claims to have found Constitutional justification to confiscate guns. They argue, in fact, that such confiscations would not even require compensation.
Looking at the “Search Gun Laws by Policy” page on their website, it becomes clear that this is only one of a great many aspects of their seething hostility to the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Today, we will look at another of those aspects–this time, their refusal to recognize any firearm as being “just right” for private ownership.
So, for example, this is what they have to say about .50 caliber rifles:
Considered among the most destructive weapons legally available to civilians in the United States, 50 caliber rifles are military firearms, used by armed forces across the globe, that combine long range, accuracy, and massive power.
Or, in other words, “This gun is too big.”
Near the bottom of the page (not counting footnotes), they list some policies they favor, including retroactive (confiscatory, in other words) bans, or at least registering of “grandfathered” guns.
On the other hand, they are also concerned about private ownership of “ultracompact” handguns:
“Ultra-compact” or “ultra-concealable” firearms are a class of semiautomatic handguns characterized by their small size and high caliber [why “high caliber” is part of the definition of “ultracompact” is left unexplained]. Firearms manufacturers began to promote these handguns, sometimes known as “pocket rockets,” in response to a growing number of state statutes that permit licensed persons to carry concealed handguns. The portability of ultra-compact handguns increases the risk of indiscriminate use by previously law-abiding citizens thrust into emotionally-charged situations.
Or, as Goldilocks would say, “This gun is too small.”
The Goldilocks analogy kinda breaks down at this point, though, because as mentioned above, one would be hard pressed to find a gun that LCPGV would consider “just right” for private citizens to own–at least without even more restrictions than are inflicted on gun owners and prospective gun owners already.
As a case in point, we should note that the group favors vastly more oppressive regulation of BB guns–including regulating them to the same intolerable degree that firearms are regulated:
- If the sale and possession of non-powder guns are permitted within the jurisdiction, the most comprehensive approach is to define all non-powder guns as firearms, so that restrictions on purchase and possession by minors, felons and other prohibited purchasers will apply
“This gun is too capable of firing without propellant powder,” perhaps, Goldilocks?
These creatures will likely never come out and say that, “This gun is too useful for defending one’s life,” or, even worse, “This gun is too useful for killing a would-be tyrant’s hired muscle,” but have no doubt that their most strenuous objection to any gun is precisely that.
- The Goldilocks approach to ‘gun control’
- Goldilocks ‘gun control,’ revisited
- Gun ‘safety’ regulation, VPC style
- The Goldilocks approach to ammunition bans
- Anti-gun group claims to outline Constitutional justification for confiscation