I really feel compelled to say upfront that what you’re about to learn is actual. You’re not being punk’d. We’re not even near April Fools Day. Michigan lawmakers have donned their clown footwear and make-up as if taking part in a “dumbest legislature” competitors and have proposed a invoice that targets what it calls “deceptively coloured firearms.” On condition that the introduction of such tomfoolery happens throughout a lame-duck session, this stage of stupidity on the taxpayer dime remains to be egregiously unacceptable. In the event you can’t watch the 2006 movie Idiocracy on account of its outrageous depiction of human absurdity, this will probably be a troublesome learn.
Senate Invoice 1134 seeks to manage firearms by proscribing the end to consist primarily of government-approved colours: black, brown, darkish grey, darkish inexperienced, silver, metal or nickel. The proposed regulation states that any substantial portion of a firearm painted in different hues would violate the ban, explicitly defining that portion as greater than 50% of the firearm’s exterior, together with key components just like the receiver or slide. Satirically, this measure would criminalize using purple, white and blue, making firearms adorned by the flag of the USA of America unlawful. Let that one sit with you.
SB 1134 prohibits the sale, buy, possession and even transportation of things described as “misleading coloring merchandise” supposed to switch the colour of a firearm, together with paints, coatings or related supplies. Firearm modifications that embody non-approved colours would even be thought of unlawful, introducing one other layer of authorized ignorance by criminalizing inventive expression. This shouldn’t come as a shock, because the left isn’t any stranger with regards to assaults on each the First and Second Amendments.
Penalties of violating the proposed regulation contain misdemeanor expenses punishable by as much as one yr in jail, a $500 positive or each, with the severity of this punishment elevating severe considerations about criminalizing lawful firearm possession via such arbitrary regulation, significantly amongst hobbyists and collectors who typically personalize their firearms.
After all, exemptions exist, however listening to them isn’t more likely to make this story extra palatable. These exceptions embody vintage firearms, weapons with handles fabricated from or resembling ivory, and firearms or associated merchandise lined by a grandfather clause for people who owned them earlier than the invoice’s enactment. Switch of those exempt objects, nonetheless, would require give up to regulation enforcement or modification to adjust to the brand new regulation.
Unsurprisingly, as with many gun management measures, exemptions additionally exist for regulation enforcement and authorities entities. Firearms owned or utilized by the state or its representatives wouldn’t be topic to paint restrictions, a double commonplace that residents have turn out to be accustomed to, and one instance that demonstrates why many People see the nation as having a multi-tiered justice system.
SB 1134 additionally addresses what it refers to as “covert firearms,” outlined as being constructed so they don’t seem to be instantly recognizable as firearms. The intent right here could also be to focus on weapons disguised as on a regular basis objects, nonetheless, the language, which I imagine is deliberately ambiguous, may result in unexpected penalties for an in any other case law-abiding citizen, to not point out would nonetheless be unconstitutional.
Why is a invoice like this mandatory within the first place? Supporters argue that banning brightly coloured firearms enhances public security, claiming that deceptively coloured firearms could trigger regulation enforcement or civilians issue distinguishing between toys and actual weapons. This concept lacks accountability, with no clear proof linking firearm shade to public security. With out tangible security advantages, SB 1134 is nothing greater than an answer searching for an issue, or seeking to do what the left does finest, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of People.
As with every infringement upon Constitutionally protected rights, SB 1134, if handed, will face vital authorized challenges at the price of taxpayers. Give it some thought. We pay them a wage to allow them to provide you with hair-brained schemes to erode our liberties whereas burning by extra of our hard-earned cash because the nation slips additional into debt. It’s time for a change.
Let’s put a reputation to the intellectually devoid degenerate who determined this proposition gave which means to their elected place. The winner is SB 1134’s sponsor, a member of the Michigan Senate, Dayna Lynn Polehanki. This is sensible to her for some purpose. Maybe it is so simple as the proverbial chipping away of your rights. Possibly she is simply an agitator seeking to instill extra political polarization. It’s fairly potential she was dropped on her head as a toddler. In any occasion, this invoice is both lifeless on arrival or dies after it’s challenged at our expense, begging the query, is that this what we actually elected these clowns for?
