By Darwin Nercesian The Truth About Guns
I feel compelled to say upfront that what you’re about to read is real. You’re not being punk’d. We’re not even close to April Fools Day. Michigan lawmakers have donned their clown shoes and makeup as if participating in a “dumbest legislature” competition and have proposed a bill that targets what it calls “deceptively colored firearms.” Given that the introduction of such tomfoolery occurs during a lame-duck session, this level of stupidity on the taxpayer dime is still egregiously unacceptable. If you can’t watch the 2006 film Idiocracy due to its outrageous depiction of human absurdity, this will be a difficult read.
Senate Bill 1134 seeks to regulate firearms by restricting the finish to consist primarily of government-approved colors: black, brown, dark gray, dark green, silver, steel or nickel. The proposed law states that any substantial portion of a firearm painted in other hues would violate the ban, explicitly defining that portion as more than 50% of the firearm’s exterior, including key parts like the receiver or slide. Ironically, this measure would criminalize the use of red, white and blue, making firearms adorned by the flag of the United States of America illegal. Let that one sit with you.
SB 1134 prohibits the sale, purchase, ownership and even transportation of items described as “deceptive coloring products” intended to modify the color of a firearm, including paints, coatings or similar materials. Firearm modifications that include non-approved colors would also be considered illegal, introducing another layer of legal ignorance by criminalizing artistic expression. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the left is no stranger when it comes to attacks on both the First and Second Amendments.
Consequences of violating the proposed law involve misdemeanor charges punishable by up to one year in prison, a $500 fine or both, with the severity of this punishment raising serious concerns about criminalizing lawful firearm ownership by means of such arbitrary regulation, particularly among hobbyists and collectors who often personalize their firearms.
Of course, exemptions exist, but hearing them isn’t likely to make this story more palatable. Those exceptions include antique firearms, guns with handles made of or resembling ivory, and firearms or related products covered by a grandfather clause for individuals who owned them before the bill’s enactment. Transfer of these exempt items, however, would require surrender to law enforcement or modification to comply with the new law.
Unsurprisingly, as with many gun control measures, exemptions also exist for law enforcement and government entities. Firearms owned or used by the state or its representatives would not be subject to color restrictions, a double standard that citizens have become accustomed to, and one example that demonstrates why many Americans see the country as having a multi-tiered justice system.
SB 1134 also addresses what it refers to as “covert firearms,” defined as being constructed so they are not immediately recognizable as firearms. The intent here may be to target weapons disguised as everyday objects, however, the language, which I believe is intentionally ambiguous, could lead to unforeseen consequences for an otherwise law-abiding citizen, not to mention would still be unconstitutional.
Why is a bill like this necessary in the first place? Supporters argue that banning brightly colored firearms enhances public safety, claiming that deceptively colored firearms may cause law enforcement or civilians difficulty distinguishing between toys and real guns. This idea lacks accountability, with no clear evidence linking firearm color to public safety. Without tangible safety benefits, SB 1134 is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem, or looking to do what the left does best, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of Americans.
As with any infringement upon Constitutionally protected rights, SB 1134, if passed, will face significant legal challenges at the cost of taxpayers. Think about it. We pay them a salary so they can come up with hair-brained schemes to erode our liberties while burning through more of our hard-earned money as the country slips further into debt. It’s time for a change.
Let’s put a name to the intellectually devoid degenerate who decided this proposition gave meaning to their elected position. The winner is SB 1134’s sponsor, a member of the Michigan Senate, Dayna Lynn Polehanki. This makes sense to her for some reason. Perhaps it is as simple as the proverbial chipping away of your rights. Maybe she is just an agitator looking to instill more political polarization. It’s quite possible she was dropped on her head as a child. In any event, this bill is either dead on arrival or dies after it is challenged at our expense, begging the question, is this what we really elected these clowns for?
Find the original article on The Truth About Guns.
READ NEXT: [REPORT] Ukraine Sent Crucial Weaponry To Terror-Linked Group
I’m surprised that they didn’t require all guns to be pink.
Huh?? What difference does it make? It sounds like a Gun control backdoor! Another way to limit Citizen’s right of self-protection.
No way this can be reasonably justified!
So how is the average cop on the beat or a concerned citizen to be able to readily determine if a firearm with some garish color scheme is ‘over’ 50% covered? Seems to me that this is yet another ploy by an over reaching ill informed politician to at the very least muddy the waters on an otherwise legitimately owned firearm.
Very petty.