This new act would put a stop to the inconsistencies between state and federal firearms laws. Important!
Last week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.
The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states — including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.
Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns — by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime — were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.
Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.
The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.
The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
8 thoughts on “SAGA: Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians”
All the firearms (and any other kind of arms) restrictive laws that don’t allow you to carry open or concealed without asking permission (getting a permit is asking permission) or that stop you from buying a particular type of weapon are all unconstitutional. What part of “…the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t the government understand? If you have to get permission your right has been infringed. If you can’t carry the kind of weapon you want, your right has been infringed. If you can’t take your weapon into certain public areas (gun free zones) then your right has been infringed. The only constitutional laws about weapons that can be carried on a person, are those that make it illegal to perform acts that are already illegal such as committing assault, robbery, attempted murder or murder. Those acts are already illegal so any laws about doing them with weapons of any specific type would be, ARE, redundant.
I’ve written to my Congressional Representative Grace Meng to vote for this bill, but I doubt she will. It would be good to have only a Federal standard and do away with the varied laws and rules of the states and municipalities that are a confusing mess. I’d certainly like to see the dumb NYS SAFE Act gone. But I strongly believe in the federal government setting nationwide licensing standards for handgun possession. This is already done with the FFL, including the C&R license. It would be good if the standards included a requirement to take an NRA course in firearms safety and storage, the Federal government paying for this. Liability insurance, which the NRA tends to recommend and advertise, is also not a bad thing to have and one could debate if it should be a requirement under a Federal licensing system. Don’t forget that the 2nd Amendment was for the purpose of being able to form a militia in the early years of our nation. Let’s also not forget that there were standards of fitness and competence that militia members had to meet. Their weapons would be inspected at drills. Who the members were and what weapons they had and where they lived was likely recorded in a town or county registry, actually an early system of gun registration. I would even bet that Paul Revere had such a list with him when he went on that famous “midnight ride”! Hopefully, he destroyed it or ate it when he ran smack into a patrol of “Redcoats”.
You don’t license a right
Don’t get caught up with the Militia aspect of the Second Amendment..You first were required to own your personal weapon to be a member of a Militia..The purpose of the second Amendment was to prevent tyranny in our governing bodies, not to form Militias..Also Federal licensing is a defacto gun owner registration system..The Bill of Rights is all about personal freedoms, not collective freedoms..Liability insurance is also a slippery slope when lawyers get involved in our rights..Never a good outcome.!Most state permit requirements are already equal requiring range time and a written test, with most using an NRA backed course for instructors and students..
Under British Common Law the militia was every able bodied male of suitable age. They were all charged with the defense of the community from invaders or criminals. The right of self-defense has always existed and was extended to the community as a community member/militiaman.
Under current federal law there exists two branches of the militia 1) the organized militia( the National Guard) and 2) the unorganized militia being every other able bodied male and female members of the National Gaurd within a specified range of ages.
To enable that militia of the whole to function the 2nd Amendment protected the rights of every able bodied citizen of the United States to keep and bear arms.
The militia exists and you are it, but the right extends to “the People”, every citizen of the U.S. not barred by judicial action after due process.
The 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to protect those rights by legislative action. If the voting rights act works, Congress has the right and power to protect the Second Amendment from the States.
Either that was tongue-in-cheek or you are a troll – heh, I just read it 3 more times. Thanks for the chuckle!
The 2A needs in place all the shoring, support, reinforcement and redundant secondary collapse systems as humanly possible.
Even IF and THAT IS A BIG IF, the votes go FOR this bill, our COMMUNIST, democommie, King-in chief “governor” and his ROYAL democommie minions in Albany, will NEVER allow a bill curbing his signature behind closed doors, middle of the night, royal “decree” to be changed.