|
Gun News Daily The Next Generation of Slaves By William Lolli CalNRA Contributing Editor July 24, 1999 No slave was ever permitted to own a gun. Only free men can. SB23, the new California Assault Weapon Ban is now law. It is the "Will of the People", the socialists say. I pondered the gravity of SB23's implications as I looked into the faces of my grandchildren. After January 1, 2000, your children and their children will be denied the right to own defensive firearms by the State. The ones I own will no longer be allowed to be passed on to my descendants. Notice the clever wording of SB23, where the law says: 12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip. (2) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches. (4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. (B) A second handgrip. (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel. (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip. (5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. (6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following: (A) A folding or telescoping stock. (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip. (7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine. (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder. (b) "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm. (c) The following definitions shall apply under this section: (1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device. (2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.Notice that in each of the cases where the wording says that the definition of a term, like assault weapon, is phrased: "that has the capacity to" accept or do such-and-such a thing, followed by the coordinate conjunction "and" followed by a characteristic. Or is it a "characteristic"? One interpretation by a state enforcement power, liberals, socialists, and certainly the media could be to interpret 12276.1 with the application of "capacity", as follows: [The term ] "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and [the capacity to accept] any one of the following:The interpretation above would mean that equal application of the intent and interpretation of the terms would be applied equally on both sides of the coordinate conjunction "and". Some would dispute this interpretation. But notice in the original wording, in multiple paragraphs, after the "and" is the phrase "any one of the following". The rhetorical question logically follows, "any one of the following what"? The law specifies that assault weapons will be defined by "capacities" and "characteristics". Therefore, it is correct (if interpreting by original intent) to insert the words "capacities" OR "characteristics" after the phrase "any of the following". Some people assume that characteristics are used to define the listing "any of the following". I maintain otherwise. I believe that since the original intent of the 1989 Ban and all subsequent laws that have been passed are based upon the premise that lawful ownership and use of "assault weapons" pose a general threat to public safety; that "capacities" is more appropriate an application than "characteristics" by the lawmakers who crafted this evil statute. This being the case, every handgun, rifle, or shotgun has the "capacity" to have a protruding pistol grip, hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, retain a threaded barrel, etc. It redefines the "assault weapon" as was intended by the legislators and the Governor. In short, this law requires the registration of every semi-auto in the state. Additionally, it prohibits the lawful sale and transfer of every semi-auto firearm in the state, and in essence, transfers the power of ownership, control, and use of this class of firearms to the state. Granted, this is my interpretation of this law, and I could be wrong. But it is not so far fetched as to think that this is the original intent of the law's creators; and that in the near future-- without too much modification of the language-- this could be the clear interpretation. Slavery stands before us on a massive scale. Only our Masters will have guns. The slavery of every California resident will be here sooner than you think.
|