When outright banning won’t work then gun control advocates resort to other means to attempt to impose soft gun control measures.
While not in the United States proper, the Northern Marianas Islands is still very much under US law and that includes all of the rights afforded to citizens, including the constitutional right to bear arms. However it seems that the Northern Marianas Islands has lawmakers bent on depriving the people there of their firearms.
First they attempted to push a bill that would impose a $1,000 tax on all handgun sales in the island territory. This coming after a four-year ban on the importation of handguns was finally overturned by Chief Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona, of the U.S. District Court. This bill would have made it next to impossible for low-income and even most middle class residents of the Marianas Islands to be able to afford a handgun. This tax and other regulations such as registry and bans on “assault weapons” was part of a bill known as the SAFE Act.
Now they have returned to the drawing board and comeback with a new “SAFE II” Act. This 93 page document seeks to not only register firearms in the Northern Marianas Islands but to also explicitly ban .50 Caliber rifles. Because as Guns.com reports,
“because they possess tremendous destructive power,” capable of firing for “eight miles” and that banning them specifically will help insulate the territory’s gun laws if the CNMI’s “caliber restrictions as to rifles is found to be unconstitutional.”
Wait, eight miles? The longest confirmed hit with a .50 BMG is only 1.5 miles. Where are these lawmakers getting their information from?
Yet these are not even the worst anti-gun bills to come up the famed “GunMugeddon” in California would have effectively put many if not all firearms dealers in California out of business. The bill would have effectively put all California FFL’s out of business by mandating that they carry a $1 Million Dollar insurance policy to cover “liability” as well as store video records of the entire store for no less than five years. This mandate on video records could also be extended at the discretion of the police. While shelved for now I’m sure that anti-firearms legislators will take victories such as Proposition 63 in California. A move that will require background checks on ammo sales, fully outlaw magazines over ten rounds in capacity, and more. While in states like Nevada a Universal Background Check bill has passed that only serves to inconvenience and potentially criminalize law-abiding citizens.
These soft, and back door attempts to regulate and impose restrictions on firearms ownership and recreation are nothing but the latest attempts by various interests to curtail the rights that were outlined in the US Constitution.
What are your thoughts on these recent inroads into attacking our Second Amendment Rights? Sound off in the comments below.