There are few things more annoying than politicians who think they are smarter than the average bear (or citizen) and thus, make laws on stuff they know next to nothing about. And we mean NOTHING.
Yesterday’s example came at the hands of Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook – most members of Congress have staff handle social media details for them, but this didn’t stop what some considered ignorant questions of the embattled CEO. And even though it’s unreasonable to expect expertise on every issue, the ignorance of elected officials on guns is mind blowing. Facts don’t seem to matter much because policy makers are hot to enact all kinds of laws that reveal a phenomenal lack of knowledge on firearm ownership and the 2nd Amendment. This is not some insignificant matter, folks – it’s reckless, and what makes it even worse is that the media is a willing accomplice in broadcasting garbage that’s designed to further a political agenda.
Unrealistic and impractical laws leave the public at a disadvantage – and gun owners at an even greater one.
As we reported last month, Los Angeles Democrat Assemblyman Chris Holden introduced AB 3199 to prohibit gun raffles in the state, simply because a northern California fire district auctioned off an AR-15 just days after the Parkland shooting. Although this was likely a misstep as far as timing goes, there is nothing improper about auctioning off a perfectly legal product – including a gun. This got some people’s panties in a bunch, however and the fire district unfortunately felt the need to apologize. This set the attack on gun raffles in motion. The issue has caught media fire and GOC is continuing to weigh in – in other words, explaining some very real facts that most leftists would prefer to suppress.
We are dealing with ignorance on many fronts. Case in point is Dr. Bill Durston, the Sacramento-based president of Americans Against Gun Violence. In the Sacramento Bee (and American Military News) this week, he said he wishes nonprofits would find other ways to raise money that didn’t involve guns such as handguns and assault rifles because they have “no legitimate civilian use.”
We beg to differ. That butter knife in his utensil drawer isn’t going to dissuade a home invader.
He went on to say that he’s not “as concerned” about raffles for “traditional sporting rifles or shotguns.” Once again, the facts escape him, and this is a biggie. Clearly, he is not aware that the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) – which includes the AR 15 – is the single largest selling firearms platform for competition and hunting in California. Millions have been sold here and many, many more millions throughout the nation. Unfortunately, MSRs have fallen victim to the “scary looking gun” scenario – although the rifles may share the appearance of a military firearm, they operate differently because they only fire one round per pull of the trigger. Imagine our surprise (not) to learn the New York Times (and reprinted by the Sacramento Bee) has put together a nifty video that demonizes the AR-15.
And then there’s this absurd news-nugget that’s been floating around: raffle winners are somehow exempt from current law. Any thought that participation in a gun raffle affords someone the ability to waltz out of an event with a gun is almost too ridiculous to address – but given the bully pulpit enjoyed by politicians, which is then reported by an oftentimes uninquisitive media, it merits a response.
Anyone who wins a gun raffle must still comply with ALL California laws. All firearms transactions must go through a licensed firearms dealer. Winners must go through a background check, and the mandated waiting period. Plus, all raffles must be registered by the Attorney General’s Office. Had there ever been an issue with such raffles in liberal California, we have absolute confidence that our anti-gun Attorney General would be on this like white on rice.
Assemblyman Holden has amended his bill to now limit gun raffles to no more than three per year. The opposition was loud and clear from GOC and other groups, but let’s be real – he was likely only responding to those organizations that were rightfully concerned about not being able to raise money for conservation purposes. Whatever the case, this bill needs to go away and go away permanently, because punishing the law abiding for the misdeeds of the unlawful will never have its intended consequence.