Some Democrats in AZ Lump Magazines with RPGs

20 Democrats in Arizona have signed on as Sponsors for HB 2711 which if passed and signed into law would lump people caught with unauthorized Rocket Propelled Grenades in the same boat as those caught holding magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds of ammunition! Unbelievable.

Essentially, this group of sponsors wish to add so-called "large capacity ammunition feeding device" to a list of items that are called "prohibited weapons" which in Arizona currently includes bombs, RPGs, grenades, and other items. They wish to define their so-called "large capacity ammunition feeding device" essentially as any magazine, drum, or strip which either can handle or could be modified to handle more than ten rounds of ammunition. Perhaps someone should explain to them that magazines are not weapons? Or is that simply beyond their ability to grasp?

If this particular group of Democrats can't grasp the simple fact that a crazy terrorist who is willing to break laws that prohibit shooting people would probably not hesitate to break a ban against so-called "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," how in the world could we expect them to grasp something as difficult to comprehend as what the definition of a weapon is? For any of the twenty who happen to know how to read, here is the definition of what a weapon is just for you. Let me know if you would like me to read it for you, I can read it slowly if you would like:

Weapon: "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon." - so essentially, the only way a magazine by itself could really be used as a weapon, would be if I beat someone over the head with it. Somewhat effective at close range, but not optimal in most situations. A baseball bat would be more effective as a weapon than a so-called large capacity ammunition feeding device, but I certainly hope they don't plan to ban those next!

If signed into law this bad legislation could surprise any average law abiding citizen with a Class 4 Felony simply because they happen to be caught carrying a standard Glock 17 and a few standard capacity 17 round magazines on their person - the very same magazine used by many Police departments all around the US.

I am SO VERY GLAD that our legislature is not in the hands of the 20 Democrats who signed onto this bill, and I am going to e-mail each and every one of them to tell them exactly what I think about the legislation they so happily signed their names to.

Senator Boxer is Dancing in Blood

Not even a month has gone by and already Senator Boxer has announced that she plans to attack the freedoms of law abiding American citizens by introducing legislation that would make it illegal to bear arms without a special permission slip from the Feds. What part of "shall not infringe" does she not understand? What part of "Keep and BEAR arms" is unintelligible? The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about requiring a special piece of paper wrapped in plastic. The 2nd Amendment is my Permit. Period.

The dirt-bag terrorist who attacked innocent victims in Arizona last month broke the law when he filled out his background check form with lies stating he had never used any illegal drugs. He broke the law when he used the illegal drugs in the first place. He obviously broke the law when he started shooting innocent victims. Having one more broken law on the books would not have stopped him any more than what the existing draconian gun laws in New York City have done for the skyrocketing violent crime in New York City.

The only thing that can stop an armed terrorist dirt-bag is an armed potential victim - I say potential victim because an armed potential victim also has the potential of defending himself (or herself), quite the opposite of an unarmed defenseless victim. Infringing the rights of law abiding citizens with new pointless laws in the hope of stopping crazy people from doing crazy things is wishful thinking at best, and complete idiocy at worst. My vote is for the latter of the two.

AZ AG Responds to Bloomberg

As you have probably heard by now, Mayor Bloomberg is once again out and about trying to close up the so-called "gun show loophole" which doesn't yet prevent individual Americans from buying and selling their own personal property without conducting the criminal background check that is required of commercial gun dealers. If it isn't odd enough that Mayor Bloomberg isn't even asking the right questions, it should certainly be odd that he is asking them 2,400 miles away from the town he was hired to be the Mayor of.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horn Agrees:

“I would suggest that Mayor Bloomberg consider the skyrocketing crime rate in New York City before he asks any more of his city’s police to leave town on these p.r. missions. According to the most recent FBI statistics, violent crime in New York City increased significantly in 2010 compared to data from 2009. Robbery went up 3.9 percent, forcible rape rose 13.9 percent, aggravated assault increased 8.8 percent and murder rose 12.3 percent. Clearly, the good men and women of the New York City Police Department have more pressing crimes to investigate than alleged violations at a gun show 2,400 miles away.”

Sheriff Joe had something to say about it as well.

Update 1: More from John R. Lott Jr.