Back in February, the NRA unveiled a document that the Obama administration had until then managed to keep hidden. The reason for this secrecy is that the National Institute of Justice (part of the Justice Department) had analyzed the most prominent proposed new federal gun laws, and found that most of them would accomplish little or nothing, unless accompanied by additional restrictions, far more draconian than the administration dares (for now) to admit seeking.
So, for example, of the gun haters’ biggest priority, “universal background checks” (a “universal” ban of private sales, in other, more honest words), the NIJ memo found little reason to hope for much effect, unless the measure were combined with universal registration.
View slideshow: “High capacity” magazines save innocent lives
Likewise, banning so-called “assault weapons” will have little effect, according to the NIJ memo, partly because such firearms are used in such a miniscule percentage of violent crime, to the extent that NIJ says that even “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.” Then, though, the memo claims that a ban, if coupled with a “buyback” (a mandatory“buyback,” with “no exemptions”–i.e., no “grandfather clause”), “could be effective.”
And now to “high capacity” magazines (anti-gunner-speak for “11-round magazines,” except for New York anti-gunners, who use that term for “eight-round magazines,” or Connecticut Democrat State Senator Edward Meyer, who thinks “high capacity” means two rounds). As with so-called “assault weapons,” NIJ thinks that “grandfathered” magazines would spoil the effect of the entire ban:
An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.
Rabidly anti-gun Illinois State Representative Mike Zalewski (D, of course, and Chicago area, of course) agrees. His Amendment #10 to “gun banner Christmas wish list gun ban bill,” HB 1156, would both ban 11-round and larger magazines, and demand that heretofore legally owned ones be surrendered, on pain of at least a Class A misdemeanor.
And that’s how Zalewski says it has to be, according to the Illinois Review:
“There can be no grandfather clause on this,” he said to those requesting an amendment, “because there are no identity numbers on these clips.” If he allowed grandfathering the magazines, he said he would lose votes from those from which he had already garnered support.
Yep–Zalewski claims that some of his colleagues so fully share his sick lust for imprisoning Illinois gun owners that they would refuse to support his bill if it were not oppressive enough. One cannot help but wonder, though, if those who would drop their support if the confiscation language were removed know that even with confiscation, the ban will be made irrelevant when anyone whowants a “high capacity” magazine can simply print one.
In voting Wednesday, the amendment fell short–but just barely, at 57 in favor and 59 opposed. Yesterday was apparently spent twisting arms trying to get those last three votes, and that effort is certainly not over. And Zalewski made clear that his hatred for gun owners has not abated an iota:
“After all the talk, there’s nothing that’s been said today that would incline me to change the wording,” Zalewski said. “I will not pull this amendment.”
Of course nothing said by opponents of the bill changed his mind. They only had facts, logic, and decency on their side. Those mean nothing to Zalewski.