Richard Zimmer: “I oppose this bill because it is essentially a sham, addressing the appearances rather than the realities of crime. It…”

“I oppose this bill because it is essentially a sham, addressing the appearances rather than the realities of crime. It would ban certain firearms on the basis of their fearsome appearance while protecting others that are functionally identical, but which just look different. As a result, the bill is an exercise in political appearances as well. Semiautomatic firearms are used in a tiny fraction of U.S. homicides; criminals who currently use the designs that would be banned will simply use one of the many equivalent models that will remain legal or will use a banned gun in violation of the law. Supporters of this bill usually begin their justification of it by asking why anyone should be permitted to own one of the ugly firearms that would be banned. As a conservative who believes in the protection of personal liberties, I begin my analysis by asking what compelling public interest would be advanced by limiting the freedom of Americans. If the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the incidence of crime committed with firearms, that objective would be far more effectively addressed by the legislation I introduced last year that would increase the criminal penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of a crime, as well as those who possess, transport, or sell guns in violation of the law.”