Alice Hausman’s Illiterate Obsession, Part I: Parts Is Parts!

HF 241 – Alice Hausman’s gun grab bill focused on so-called “assault weapons” – has morphed from a list of ugly-looking army-type guns into a recipe book written by people who don’t understand much about guns, but know they really really don’t like them.

Rather than write one long article about this deeply stupid bill, I’m going to break it down in terms of its pure, specious illogic over the next day or so.

The first part of the bill bans any…:

(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or

(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

Put briefly, if the rifle has a detachable magazine (the thing that holds the bullets) it can’t have a pistol grip, a forward handgrip, an adjustable stock or – this is confusing – the wrong kind of thingie wrapped around the barrel.

So in other words, this Ruger Mini-14 is legal…:

…while this one is illegal…:

…even though the two are functionally exactly identical.

Exactly. As in, there is no difference, down to and including the magazine size.

Oh, it gets dumber.  Yes, the bill would ban this rifle…:

…which is functionally exactly identical to this rifle here:

Both are Ruger 10/22s, perhaps the most ubuquitous .22 caliber plinking rifle in the country.  They are mechanically identical – but one has furniture that offends Alice Hausman’s sensibilities.

Dumber still?  If you like sniping at varmints, this 10/22 is just as illegal as the “tacti-cool” one above:

It’s the same gun, with the “thumbhole stock”.  And if you want to have an adjustable stock, so your kids can shoot the same rifle you do?

Yep. Banned.

Every last one of them is precisely mechanically the same; same ten-round detachable magazine (it pops out of the stock just ahead of the trigger guard), same low-power .22 round.

In other words, Hausman’s gun grab isn’t aimed at even the most tangential definition of “Deadliness”; it’s entirely focused on cosmetic features that have nothing to do with a weapon’s effect.

They get dumber.   More later today.

10 thoughts on “Alice Hausman’s Illiterate Obsession, Part I: Parts Is Parts!

  1. Meanwhile, at least five manufacturers of tactical weapons, have decided that they will not sell to New York law enforcement entities. They have exercised their rights to refuse to do business with a state government whose ignorant elected leaders prevent their citizens from buying their products.

  2. Here’s a fun game to make Alice’s pointy little head explode.

    Get yourself a composite stock for your Mini14 with a tube style buttstock that doesn’t collapse.

  3. Actually Hoss, as I understand it most of those companies are restricting their sales and custom gunwork to NY government agencies to what is available to the general population, although some are outright refusing to do business with victim-disarmers.

    I highly encourage this sort of level headed, common sense behavior by responsible arms companies and hope the big boys follow suite.

  4. Ronnie Barrett, maker of the Barrett .50 BMG rifle addressed the same concerns to the LAPD about ten years ago.

    While the agency utilized the rifle in tactical situations (as does the US military and other “official” entities), the rifle did double duty being used by the LAPD as a prop to help prohibit it’s sale to CA citizens. Actually, it was already prohibited under the CA “assault weapon” ban, but the big, powerful rifle made for a great photo.

    When LAPD sent one in for service, Barrett responded with a letter advising them that he would no longer sell his product to them, or to any agency who chose to demonize it and infringe on the rights of the citizens they serve.

    He subsequently redesigned his rifle to be California compatible, making it available to citizens of that state. Much to the chagrin, I assume, of the CA gun grabbers.

    The same theatrics are being used by Ms. Hauseman and her crew, as they always are, when they want to restrict the Second Amendment, but lack a functional understanding of the inanimate objects they want to endow with the ability to form evil intent, independent of its human user.

    You would think they’d be able to find some coffee-break commando who could at least explain the basics to them before they embarassed themselves this way. Unfortunately, soccer moms and their followers don’t know any better either, so factual information isn’t a requirement.

  5. swiftee; your assessment is correct. Ya’ gotta love good old American businesses that believe in the principles that our great country was founded on!

    Although my friend that founded DPMS in St. Cloud, after he sold it to Freedom Group, so is only affiliated with the company as a member of their competition shooting team, says that FG’s Management is following the shenanigans in St. Paul very closely. He said that the costs of doing business in MN were an issue with FG during their due diligence process and since there is nothing holding them here, they will most likely release the 40 or so workers there and move!

  6. More head-exploding ammo for Alice in Wonderland: I just saw a kit that would transform my Glock 22 into a carbine!

  7. Hoss, on behalf of my fellow Freedom Loving South Carolinians (although the single, sterile, Homo Moonbatus specimen we keep in the Columbia zoo is sure to throw feces), please extend the same warm greetings to Freedom Group:

    South Carolina congressman invites Remington Arms to the state

    Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/greenville-news/South-Carolina-congressman-invites-Remington-Arms-to-the-state/-/9654794/18331748/-/ve7qgmz/-/index.html#ixzz2LGopwvyY

  8. Wouldn’t this be as simple as the fore-end of the stock protecting the user from getting his hand burnt by the barrel and make most any rifle today illegal if it has a detachable magazine?

    (iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

  9. Mbree – I think you’re on to something. What you describe certainly seems to fit their definition. Maybe grandpa’s Savage model 99 or Winchester model 100 could be on the same chopping block as the patently evil AR-15 and its clones. Despite the anti’s incessant mantra of “sporting purpose” and “hunting” when describing the only valid use for firearms, maybe they really know that once the bullet leaves the barrel, it doesn’t matter what color the gun was; ban them all.

    I wouldn’t invest in too much hope that the gun makers will align against the government entities that seem to be against them.

    Smith and Wesson readily jumped on the Clinton bandwagon in the ’90s (although they paid a great price for it), and the late Bill Ruger Sr., while running Sturm, Ruger, Inc., made it very clear that certain products in his line (like the Mini- 14GB Gordon Kaul is pictured with in a previous post or high capacity magazines) would not be made available to the general public, even though those products were legal to own.

    Business is business. Ideology usually doesn’t count for much outside the PR department unless it shores up the bottom line. Hope I’m proved wrong …

  10. Pingback: Dialogue | Shot in the Dark

Leave a Reply