Billionaire former mayor Michael Bloomberg just delivered his plans for running an anti-gun campaign in his race for the presidential seat in 2020… and it’s not looking good for Americans if he’s elected.

During a speech delivered Thursday in Aurora, Colorado, the infamous stop-and-frisk champion of yesteryear promised to reinstitute a federal assault weapons ban and require more rigorous background checks and licensing to obtain firearms if he becomes the next president. Of course, this is all contingent upon him winning the democratic primaries and then landing the White House position in the presidential race.

Police bashing Godfather of gun control says it's time to make him President

Police bashing Godfather of gun control says it’s time to make him President

 

It comes as no surprise that the former mayor, who recently launched his 2020 Democratic primary bid, laid out the gun control agenda during an event in Aurora, Colorado, as this was the city that played host to the horrible tragedy where a man killed 12 people in a movie theater in 2012.

Bloomberg called for raising the age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, the same for purchasing booze; while also saying that it’s time to resurrect the assault weapons ban that went into effect 25 years earlier.

Honing in on the assault weapons ban, which was a federal law that was enacted in 1994 and ended in 2004, is what’s most curious. The big question is: will the ban have any effect on firearm homicides at all? Well, the answer isn’t exactly clear.

In 2004, the National Institute of Justice commissioned a study by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, which didn’t paint a picture of renewed federal bans working.  The research found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on deterring gun violence would likely be pretty small. So small that they believed there would be no measurable difference.

That finding is heavily influenced by the fact that rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes, despite the sensationalized take about mass shootings from the mainstream media.

That study found no significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

 

The report also found that gun crimes that involved assault weapons declined by 17 to 72 percent in the certain areas. Many claimed this to be a victory of the ban, but there’s a catch to that notion: there were numerous assault weapons that were grandfathered in and remained in possession and circulation of gun owners.

The report concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” noting the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that were exempted and floated around for years following the ban’s implementation.

That’s not all that is up Bloomberg’s sleeve though, stating that he would also require every prospective gun owner to attain a permit before making buying any gun and enduring a 2-day waiting period. The proposed background checks would encompass everything from private sales to gun shows and shops, while also inhibiting individuals with a history of domestic abuse from landing a firearm.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.

Bloomberg's plan for gun control could spell disaster for Americans

 

Sensible background checks are one thing, but criminal histories prohibiting firearm access is not the only thing Bloomberg wants to enact. If you guessed he wants “red flag” laws to become a nationwide rule, then you’d be correct. He stated that he’ll push for a bill similar to ones adopted by various states to be implemented on a national level.

Bloomberg dove into statistics on the thousands of people killed every year by firearms, which he conveniently ushered in numbers that included victims of suicide. In an effort to appeal to the emotions of people, he uttered things like “This has to stop,” when talking about firearm related homicide. Of course, there was also the shameless plug for his presidential running:

“I’m running for president to stop this national madness.”

It wouldn’t be a liberal display of higher moral authority without mentioning Trump, as Bloomberg implied that President Trump is a pawn of the National Rifle Association. On top of throwing fellow Democrats under the bus, complaining that they never passed stricter gun control laws while controlling both houses of Congress for two years, a final jab was made against President Trump:

“Donald Trump seems to accept this violence and pain.”

Screaming about guns didn’t seem to work so well for Beto, it will be interesting to see how this stance unfolds for Bloomberg.

In Virginia, the idea of a gun grab may already be in the works. 

Last month, Democrats took control of both houses of Virginia’s legislature. They already control the governor’s office with Ralph “Blackface” Northam.

On November 18, mere weeks after Democrats learned they would be controlling the government in Virginia, State Sen. Dick Saslaw introduced a bill that he will sponsor next year in the 2020 legislative session. The bill will outlaw not only the sale or transfer, but also the possession of certain firearms.

SB16 provides that:

‘It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or transport an assault firearm” and makes such actions a Class 6 felony. Of note is that in Virginia, Class 6 felonies are punishable by imprisonment for between one and five years.’

This proposed bill widely expands the definition of “assault” firearms, including a wide range of center-fire rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Basically, every rifle of the common AR-15 type design, as well as a number of pistols and shotguns that are commonly used for personal defense, target shooting, and hunting would be banned.

Since mere possession of such weapons would be illegal, they would also have to be either surrendered to or seized by law enforcement authorities in the jurisdiction in which they are located.

This law, if enacted, would greatly exceed any other gun control law in the United States by making possession of the covered firearms illegal, rendering them subject to seizure from their owners.

Saslaw is not the only politician looking to jump on the gun control bandwagon. The governor of Virginia, Northam, has stated that he plans on reintroducing a package of laws addressing “gun violence” during the next legislative session.

“Things like universal background checks. Getting rid of bump stocks, high volume magazines, ‘red flag’ laws. These are common sense pieces of legislation. I will introduce those again in January,” he said. I’m convinced, with the majority now in the House and the Senate, they’ll become law and because of that Virginia will be safer.”

Earlier this year after a mass shooting in Virginia Beach where 13 people were killed, Northam convened a special session of the state legislature to consider a group of bills including background checks and limiting devices that suppress the sound of gunshots. Also included was a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Republican legislators blocked consideration of the bills, with House Speaker condemning the special session as an “election year stunt.”

During the election cycle, former New York City mayor and current Democrat presidential wanna-be Michael Bloomberg spent $2.5 million on the election on behalf of Democrat candidates through his Everytown for Gun Safety lobbying group.

Under Saslaw’s bill, Virginians would not be allowed pistols that accept the magazine into the weapon at any other point than the pistol grip.

They would also be limited to an unloaded weight of 50 ounces. The bill would also limit shotguns to a magazine capacity of no more than seven shells.

The bill itself indicates that it may increase imprisonment.

“The provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment,” an indication that increased imprisonments are a likely outcome of its passage.

The National Rifle Association, as expected, opposes the bill. According to the NRA-ILA, the bill does not grandfather existing owners of the firearms, stating that current owners would have to give up their banned firearms or face a felony conviction. The NRA said that the bill is “clearly designed to be firearms confiscation.”

The law also uses the words “like kind”, which the NRA defines as “unacceptable vagueness” that would place a burden on gun owners with guessing how courts may interpret the provision and potentially judge components on their firearms.

It is likely that any such legislation passed in Virginia will end up in the Supreme Court.

 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First