Another day in the Democrat-led House and another attack on gun ownership as Democrats narrowly pulled off passing the bill that bans a variety of semi-automatic rifles. The bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate.
It came as a last-minute vote on Friday before congress took its August recess of 45 days. Democrats presented the H.R. 1808 bill sponsored by Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island. It passed 217–2013 in the House, thanks to two Republicans who voted with Democrats. On the contrary, five Democrats voted in opposition to the bill.
American Military News listed the various types of guns that the bill means to “regulate” including most semi-automatic rifles with one or more military features. The bill seeks to ban the sale, manufacture, or transfer of these guns, though guns legally owned on or before the enactment of the bill will be exempt from the ban.
As reported in Breitbart and other media, it was the ‘yes’ vote of two Republicans that helped Democrats pass H.R. 1808 in the House—Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
Republican Reps. Chris Jacobs and Brian Fitzgerald voted for Friday’s ban, which targets at least 45 specific models of America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15.
With five Democrats voting against the bill, the two Republican votes in support of the legislation determined the success in passing it. However, the bill needs at least 10 Republicans in the Senate to vote with liberals (assuming all of them vote for it in the Senate), so it doesn’t stand much chance there.
The renewed attempt of Democrats to restrict future ownership of popular guns in the country comes a month after the Supreme Court awarded the second amendment advocates a major victory in late June by ruling in favor of one’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
With the midterm election just a few months away, passing anti-gun legislation in the House comes more as a campaign move than a serious attempt to enact a sweeping ban on semi-automatic rifles.
The Crime Report recently reported on Democrats’ worries about losing the House majority this November due to a number of bills that fund local law enforcement. For the Democrats, funding the police is politically risky in two ways: if they sponsor bills funding the police, the social justice warriors can get mad at them; if they don’t enable law enforcement, the rampant crime in blue cities speaks for their failed administration.
