Concealable Assault-Style Firearms!? Anti-American Democrats Drop Made-Up Scare Term

Concealable Assault-Style Firearms: More Fake talk and fear-mongering from… you guessed it, Democrats.

Fake News Biased Media Gun Banners iStock-807078422
GOA Blasts Call to Add So-Called “Concealable Assault-Style Firearms” to NFA, iStock-807078422

Springfield, VA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Gun Owners of America (GOA) Senior Vice President Erich Pratt rebuked a call by 109 Democrat lawmakers who recklessly seek to add a made-up and undefined category of firearms referred to as “Concealable Assault-Style Firearms” to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Concealable Assault-Style Firearms…!?

“The Democrats’ anti-gun ‘logic’ is asinine,” Pratt stated. “They think that criminals, who are willing to break the law to commit murder, will somehow be stymied by gun control restrictions and voluntarily submit to them. Instead of adding to the confusing complexity of the National Firearms Act — and thereby criminalizing honest gun owners — Congress should take up and pass legislation like the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, which would remove Short Barreled Rifles from the NFA.”

Last Congress, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act was championed by then Kansas Representative Roger Marshall. However, because of his leadership on Second Amendment, gun owners in the Sunflower State elected Marshall to the United States Senate. Now, Senator Marshall is continuing his defense of the Second Amendment by introducing the Senate companion, S. 803.

Pratt concluded, “Legislation like the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act is true ‘common sense gun legislation.’ The archaic and unconstitutional National Firearms Act is scoffed at by criminals while needlessly forcing honest gun owners to jump through hoops just to own certain types of firearms and accessories.”


Editors Note: Concealable Assault-Style Firearms is a perfect example of a fake issue in need of a fake fix to take away your God-given rights.


Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesperson, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a grassroots nonprofits dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

Gun Owners of America GOA logo

Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FORD Will
FORD Will
1 month ago

ILLEGAL LAWS will NOT be followed, IF they go against the CONSTITUTION!…..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  FORD Will

There are many “pet peeves” and people writing like this is one of mine.

StLPro2A
StLPro2A
1 month ago

A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
He only controls the good guys….which is his true agenda. 
And there, boys and girls, is the Xiden/KamelHo/Pigloosi/Slummer/Finestain Gun Violence Prevention Plan in a nut shell. 

Country Boy
Country Boy
1 month ago

“Concealable Assault-Style Firearms” to the National Firearms Act (NFA).
I take it this is supposed to cover and classify our semi auto handguns with over 10 rd magazines. The democrats have finally pegged the needle on the Insane Gauge IMO.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago

Didn’t read the other comments yet so maybe someone else already thought of this: wouldn’t a martial artist be guilty of ‘concealing’ an assault style weapon (they always conflate weapon with firearm after all) if they have their hands in their pockets? Yes their absurdity is really at that low of a level – yet again.

Glide
Glide
1 month ago

Just a question/thought: if the definition of assault is to attack, where does the (assault weapon) ban end?
If Cain killed Abel with a rock, will the government ban rocks.
David used a sling and stone, Sampson used a jawbone of an ass, the Israelites used trumpets to bring down a wall etc..etc. If you feed someone you know that has a nut allergy, nuts. Are you not using nuts as an assault weapon? The question is where does it end.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  Glide

Glide – very similar to my thought – it will ‘end’ when they get total control – and even then they will still try to acquire even more power and control. They really don’t care about the ‘weapons’ as such, they only care about getting and retaining control.

Knute
Knute
1 month ago
Reply to  GomeznSA

It will never end. For those back stabbers in great enough fear of the population that they *supposedly* represent (but have betrayed), no power will ever be enough. Their fear will still drive them to new depths of insanity. Even if they did manage to confiscate all 500 million firearms in the US, they would still fear. Rocks and pointy sticks would be up for banning also, but probably cars and gasoline first. But they will never get it done. Before they can come much closer than they are right now, their own fear and insanity will destroy them. It’s… Read more »

Country Boy
Country Boy
1 month ago
Reply to  Glide

it never ends…that is the goal of democrats IMO……..

Core
Core
1 month ago

More of the same since pre-Clinton era. Assault weapons bans were lifted by sensible leadership and constitutionality restored by President Bush Jr. and crime dropped due to good policing and efforts of heroes like Rudy Giuliani’s who worked to reform NYC high crime. Not surprisingly the Democrat leadership since has caused crime to spike, and debt to skyrocket due to unsustainable policies and regulatory red tape. and most tragically poor leadership who does not have the spine to let good citizens be free and punish criminals for crimes.

DonP
DonP
1 month ago
Reply to  Core

The way I remember it, the assault weapons ban was not “lifted by sensible leadership.” It went away because it was scheduled to sunset after 10 years (due to sensible leadership) and the 10 years was over.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Core

So many people make up things to fit their view.

Bush indicated he would sign the extension of the “assault weapon ban” if it reached his desk.

Thankfully, there were enough politicians who were afraid of not getting re-elected who voted against the extension bill, so it never landed on Bush’s desk.

Bush was anti 2nd Amendment.

Docduracoat
Docduracoat
1 month ago

I have been saying on all the gun blogs that Donald Trump set a horrible precedent banning bump stocks by executive fiat.
I predict all NFA workarounds like pistol braces and binary triggers will be banned by the Biden/Harris administration.

Country Boy
Country Boy
1 month ago
Reply to  Docduracoat

FWIW…I think Trump knew it’s be overturned by the courts…and it was. He threw the dems a bone…but with a string on it so it could be retrieved.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Country Boy

“3-D Chess” – I’m sure all of the other gun control he pushed was part of the master plan as well. Clever.

White House Meeting on Community and School Safety | C-SPAN.org (c-span.org)

Republican politicians have ben emboldened by so many people commenting on how gun control is ok as long as it is passed by Republicans. John Cornyn is going to pick-up the ball for Trump and continue what was discussed in that meeting. Cornyn will be convinced its ok because he has seen so many people worship Trump even after he flip-flopped on the 2nd Amendment.

Last edited 1 month ago by JSNMGC
musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago

They will never give up, it will never stop but we need to do everything we can to make their efforts mute. Constitutional Carry all across the land by federal mandate. Governors and law enforcement not complying will be jailed and fined. Come get Kate Brown please.

Hazcat
Hazcat
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

I agree with your sentiment but not your wording. “Constitutional Carry all across the land by federal mandate.” should read “Constitutional Carry across the land by recognition of the pre-existing right as stated in the Constitution.”

Remember anything ‘granted’ by the government can be taken away by the government.

Core
Core
1 month ago
Reply to  Hazcat

Article VI (Supreme Law) cannot be knowingly violated by ANY judge. If a judge of any inferior or the highest court makes an unconstitutional determination they are not in good standing with it, and citizens must ensure they are disbarred or censured until they regain good standing. (Judges should only get three strikes and they are out) Article VI explains that States and Locales may only enact reasonable legislation IF it complies with the rest of the body of the US Constitution. It further states that said legislation must be reasonable, of consensus, and the rights guaranteed within the Bill… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Core

But they are doing it and getting away with it because the majority of people in power is their kind. I used to believe in the power of the vote to change things but last year we saw that this belief is a farce. Here is something that baffles my mind. How can a judge stop a president from using his power to do something. Example: every five seconds demonrat judges were telling Trump you can’t take funds etc. to build the wall, etc. and stopping the effect of what he was trying to do. End DACA is another. Will… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Hazcat

I think the part of my wording you don’t like is the word mandate. The mandate part is for locking up the governors and law enforcement that do not follow the new constitutional carry law. Todays government seems to think it can follow and enforce or not follow or enforce anything anytime it wants. It all depends on the politicians and the government in control. Look at the left coast. Everyone of the states are safe zones, sanctuary states for illegal entries into the United States of America. Our government should mandate that if governors and law officials do not… Read more »

DonP
DonP
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

I’m not too keen on that wording either. If the federal government comes up with any laws that are unconstitutional, by that wording the governors and law enforcement would be required to enforce them. The governors and law enforcement should be mandated to follow the constitution… which would allow them to violate any laws that are unconstitutional.