Following Thursday’s House passage of a Democrat gun control bill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a ban on 205 “assault weapons.”
The legislation, called the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” is co-sponsored by 34 Senate Democrats. It would also ban ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Feinstein’s ban would allow current owners of “assault weapons” to retain possession of them, but if the gun is transferred, a person must undergo an FBI background check before receiving the firearm.
Her “Assault Weapons Ban” also bans bump stocks, which have been illegal since March 26, 2019.
Feinstein announced her ban stating:
It’s been 17 years since the original Assault Weapons Ban expired, and the plague of gun violence continues to grow in this country. To be clear, this bill saves lives. When it was in place from 1994-2004, gun massacres declined by 37 percent compared with the decade before. After the ban expired, the number of massacres rose by 183 percent.
In contrast, the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a report indicating the 1994 “assault weapons” ban did not reduce crime.
The Washington Timesquoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
The NIJ report continued, “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states…
American Partisan, among others, made note of the Nov. 19th press conference with “Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, and a host of other lawyers who are representing President Trump and the American people who voted for him.”
…To be quite frank, I was mesmerized as I drove around and at one point when my errand list was done, I parked in a shopping center parking lot to listen to the end of the press conference.
Giuliani started out saying that he called the news conference because he was tired of the press saying that the Presidential election was not stolen. “Show us facts” the MSM keeps shouting…