It’s unbelievable though apparently true (I quadruple-checked it) that the United States’ murder rate for 2025 may be the lowest it has been since perhaps 1900. Given this, even those fancying gun control a remedy may think more firearms restrictions would currently be a solution in search of a problem.
Not today’s Democratic politicians, though. They’re proving it, too, pushing policies that further strip Second Amendment rights.
Consider Virginia’s newly-elected Abigail Spanberger, who ran for governor, as a commentator put it, “as a sane, middle-of-the-road Democrat.” (Is this essentially oxymoronic now?) She’s poised to sign into law a ban on “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines (relevant tweet below).
Outrageously, however, and as the below tweet points out, these statist politicians don’t even know what they’re banning.
The Straight Dope on Dopey Legislation
But one man who does know is military veteran and firearms expert Mike McDaniel. And as he informs today:
There is, of course, no such thing in firearm nomenclature as an “assault weapon.” There are military assault rifles, which fire intermediate cartridges and have select fire — automatic — capability, but such rifles are essentially banned by federal law. What Spanberger is targeting is America’s most popular rifle, the semiautomatic AR-15 and anything like it. The bill also bans magazines of greater than 15 round capacity, which encompasses many standard magazines.
The law is, on its face, blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen decisions make clear bans on firearms in common use are unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe arbitrary bans on magazine capacity are also constitutionally out of bounds.
Yet even this doesn’t fully illustrate AR-15 bans’ inanity. (By the way, the “AR” in the preceding stands for “Armalite Rifle,” not “assault rifle.”) Just consider the following facts (note: I’ll reference misnamed “assault rifles” as “sporting rifles”):
- Sporting rifles’ operation is semiautomatic only (one bullet released per trigger pull). This makes them just like 50 percent of all new guns sold.
- According to the FBI, “personal weapons” (hands, fists, and feet) are used in more murders than rifles of all kinds. And, of course, sporting rifles are just one kind.
- In reality, handguns are used in 62 percent of murders committed with firearms. They’re also criminals’ weapon of choice because they’re concealable. This is why, prior to leftists’ sporting-rifle obsession (in the ’80s, for instance), gun-control efforts targeted handguns.
Then there’s the following, from an X respondent under the first tweet above. “More Virginians were killed by illegal aliens,” he writes, “than ‘assault weapons’ 2025-2026 YTD.”
While this may not be true (I researched it), the numbers do appear comparable. And the preceding two points raise a couple of questions.
Why are Democrats fixated on removing Americans’ rights rather than removing illegals?
And why are they focused not on handguns, but firearms used in perhaps one percent of all murders?
It’s simple: Targeting sporting rifles is terrible policy — but terrific left-wing politics.
The State Making Virginia Look Sane
And, of course, it’s terrific left-wing politics — meaning, it pleases low-info voters — not just in Virginia. Consider Minnesota, the Land of 10,000 Lakes and 10,000(?) Somali fraudsters. As McDaniel writes, introducing the state’s lunacy:
In Bananas, Woody Allen’s Latin American dictator seized power and immediately went crazy. In a classic scene, he ordered the people to change their underwear every half hour and wear it on the outside “so we can check.”
But this fiction has little on Minnesota. As George Washington University law Professor Jonathan Turley tells us:
As Turley wrote Wednesday, this “chilling” legislation, SF 4290, was introduced by state Senator Matt Klein. And among other things, the measure would ban sporting rifles and magazines whose capacity exceeds 10 rounds.
It is the aforementioned home-inspection provision, however, that makes the Minnesota law so “distinctive,” warns Turley. The law states, he writes,
that, in addition to securing state permission or certification for the possession of existing weapons, owners must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the device to ensure compliance with this subdivision.”
McDaniel suggests that this appears a “direct violation of the Fourth Amendment,” which he then quotes:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Whatever the case, targeting sporting rifles in the U.S. is, to an extent, targeting gun ownership itself. Turley explains why:
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting.
And, of course, the capacity for personal protection — and to resist tyranny — is precisely what the Second Amendment was designed to safeguard.
Turley hopes that these liberal-state gun laws’ onerousness will finally compel the Supreme Court to review them. But even this, and a favorable ruling, won’t matter if something else happens. As McDaniel concludes:
Should a Democrat take the White House in 2028, and Democrats take the Congress, they’ll make good on their threat to pack the Supreme Court and no man’s life or liberty will be safe. Of course, should they ever get that kind of power, no Supreme Court precedent will be safe.
No doubt. This gets at the underlying problem, too. While our murder rate may be its lowest since 1900, the electorate’s knowledge level is now perhaps lower still. And no matter what laws are made, voters will always be able to shoot — themselves in the foot.
