Jim Shepherd, publisher of the Outdoor Wires, had a very interesting column this morning regarding the new gun control legislation that has been surfacing in places as disparate as Colorado and New Jersey. The language of the bills seems to have been derived from the same source - Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors. This is something Michael Bane just pointed out about the Colorado legislation in his weekly Down Range Radio podcast on Wednesday.
Jim asks the question what if the purpose of the legislation is really the redefinition of legal terms.
But what if the intent of this legislation wasn't really the banning of magazines or classes of firearms? What if the real intent was to let the bans be watered down while pushing through sweeping redefinitions of terms we all think are clearly defined?Jim poses a very interesting question which illustrates the Machiavellian nature of some of our opponents. Read Jim's whole column. It is a must-read.
Consider, for example, the lawful transfer. That's a transfer of ownership between two private parties or between a federal firearms licensee and a purchaser, right? To a point.
But what if language broadened to the point that the term "transfer" was applicable to any regulated item -such as a "high-capacity magazine" used in competition and not just a "firearm"?
It seems to be a very small distinction, until you realize that a lawful transfer, as stated under Colorado's proposed statutes, would be applicable to magazines. And those definitions went on to broaden a "recognized competition" as having been run by either a state agency or non-profit. SASS, IDPA, USPSA are not, technically non-profit organizations. Under that broadened definition, USPSA/IDPA match officials picking up a magazine dropped during a competition stage would be participating in an illegal transfer.