Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to move an “assault weapons” ban for the first time in decades this week.
The move came as a bit of a surprise. Democrats haven’t passed an assault weapons ban at the federal level since the original one expired in 2004. They didn’t include one alongside the other measures in the gun-control package they passed in the wake of the Uvalde shooting.
So, I brought Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms on to discuss the changing tides. Cam is one of the most insightful pro-gun writers out there and has been for a long time. He follows gun developments in Congress as close as anyone.
He said the move is perplexing in light of the latest polling. Assault weapons bans have actually lost support since Uvalde. Quinnipiac University found support for a ban at an all-time low this week. And that drop in support has coincided with their increased popularity. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported more than 24.4 million ARs and AKs in circulation this week.
Cam said Democrats are trying to use the ban as a wedge issue for their base. However, he doesn’t see how the politics of passing the ban could help Democrats overcome the uphill battle they’re facing in the midterm elections. He argued a show vote, which is what this will end up being if it does pass, is not going to satisfy most gun-control activists anyway.
He also laid out how much of an “if” this vote really is. Democrats still don’t have all the votes nailed down. They might not ever get there.
Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the armed bystander who ended an Indiana mall shooting.
You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here.
Video of the full episode is also available on our YouTube channel.
2 Responses
Thanks for the interesting interview with Mr. Edwards from Bearing Arms. From the layman’s point of view in a (ban|oppressed) state, this is more of the same terrifying brinksmanship.
California Democrat supermajority, combined with Ninth Circuit the most political activist/reversed court in US, means any hare-brained scheme gets a rubber stamp. The most recent being the “Separate But Equal” laws in ‘massive resistance’ to (and evisceration of) Bruen. Or laws trying to assess legal fees “only for firearms related lawsuits” (note the equal protections violation) to plaintiffs.
It’s terrifying to see the same — for lack of a more appropriate term — fascism, or in other words, ideological unitarianism devoid of logic, appear at a national level. I don’t like analogies like this; but this is a direct description. Especially in regards to party leaders like Pelosi and national party marching orders.
I am concerned that the neutral, independent public cannot call out these acts for that they plainly are. I hope this doesn’t come off as jaded, as someone who has finally had vindication that “yes, Virginia, the second amendment IS a civil right” by the Supreme Court — on the heels of the abomination of legal due process that was Peruta v. CA.
I understand your pessimism, especially living where you do. A lot of how things unfold from here depends on follow up from the Supreme Court. It was very slow to act after Heller/McDonald. However, it’s a different court now and I think there’s good reason to believe they will act, especially on the more absurd follow-up laws in New York and California.