The 2A Guarantee Act: A Death Blow to State Bans on ‘Assault Rifles’

Rep. Chris Collins. (Photo: Collins/Facebook)

U.S. Rep. Chris Collins’ (R-NY) Second Amendment Guarantee Act, or SAGA, is looking to make an end-run around several major court battles and block states’ ability to restrict rifles and shotguns at the federal level. SAGA would prevent any states from enacting or enforcing laws that are more strict than federal regulations allow.

This would essentially kill all assault weapon bans and magazine capacity limits for most rifles and shotguns. While the bill doesn’t change the way states regulate handgun ownership, it represents a major move for gun rights.

The SAGA is Collins’ bid to overthrow New York’s SAFE Act, the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013. Passing the SAFE Act was a primary goal of gun control advocates following the Sandy Hook shooting.

But the scale of this bill is much larger than just New York. SAGA, or H.R.3576, will supersede all so-called “assault weapons” bans in all of the U.S.

This is the second major push for pro-gun legislation following years of pressure to create new forms of gun control. Along with the push to regulate suppressors the same way as firearms, SAGA embodies a nationwide rally for gun rights.

“This law would prohibit states from regulating, prohibiting, registering or licensing a rifle or shotgun for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession or marketing beyond the requirements of federal law,” said Collins.

“While I understand the importance of the 10th Amendment of our Constitution, which provides states the responsibility to initiate laws and regulations, states like New York should not have the ability to take away the constitutional rights of their citizens,” he said. “The Constitution grants American citizens the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. This amendment shall not be infringed upon and unfortunately, that is what Cuomo’s SAFE Act does.”

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a society where Americans have, and will forever possess, the right to keep and bear arms,” Collins added. “The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm. It is one of my most important duties, as a member of Congress, to assure that the rights granted to the people in my district are not infringed upon.”

See Also: Seattle Gun Control Tax is Another Miserable Failure

Gun control advocates criticized the bill. “This is one of the more dramatic and extreme bills out there,” said the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Lindsay Nichols. “It would really impact almost every state in the nation.”

Nichols said that gun control efforts would be “significantly undermined” by SAGA.

Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, said that the bill would put millions at risk. “We understand that Washington is in turmoil right now,” said Cuomo. “We just ask that they don’t do anything to set back the progress we’ve been able to make despite them.”

About the author: Max Slowik is a writer with over a dozen years of experience and is a lifelong shooter. He has unwavering support for the Second Amendment and the human right to self-defense. Like Thomas Paine, he’s a journalist by profession and a propagandist by inclination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • christopher scallio August 4, 2017, 6:10 pm

    It’s a very bad idea. Remember in the 90’s when B.J. Clinton signed Congress’ DOMA Law? Defense of Mariage Act.
    I knew it was a very bad idea then, but everyone at my Church and work supported it. They saw it as protecting traditional
    marriage. I saw it as not being the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Whereby if you supported the Fed’s as being the one who defines what marriage is then, later they could easily re-define it since this created a precedent. Or like B.J. Clinton’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Executive Order to bypass still standing U.S. Law that forbids homosexuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Services. And later Berry Oboma removes the Executive Order yet now openly defies U.S. Law. The same scenario will play out with a Federal Law which forbids States from interfering with your 2nd Amendment Rights. Thereby setting the precedent for the Fed’s to be the ones to either re-authorize States or that the Fed’s only can authorize or not.

    • DaveGinOly August 5, 2017, 3:31 pm

      I disagree. SAGA will only prevent the States from making more stringent laws than the feds. It does nothing to add to the authority of the federal government, nor would it prevent a State from making its firearms laws more liberal than the federal government’s (that’s a hard sell even now, but SAGA wouldn’t make it worse).

  • Leighton Cavendish August 4, 2017, 2:26 pm

    Let people buy whatever they want…but hold them accountable if they misuse it.
    Whether it be “silencers” or machine guns…whatever.
    If you want to have some restricted items…that require photo and fingerprints…figure that out. But the background checks should still be “instant”. No year-long wait and $200 tax stamps.
    Maybe make the sentence fit the item. Misuse a grenade? Life in prison. Done. Same with a 20mm or 30mm cannon or bazooka.

    • christopher scallio August 4, 2017, 6:18 pm

      Yes the sphere of Self-government jurisdiction consists of your rights to life liberty and property. Natural Law 101. No other has jurisdiction over your jurisdiction. You are created free to own whatever property you choose. Whether a good or bad choice. Yet you are fully responsible for your actions when you interfere with another’s rights. Who the hell wants to be a “Person” with mere “Privileges and Immunities” when they can be an “Inhabitant” or “People” with “Inalienable Rights?”

  • Mike August 4, 2017, 1:04 pm

    I would like to see some penalties added, so that anyone (local, state or federal) who infringes on a citizens constitutional rights be subject to criminal prosecution and fines. So that a local politician or official who tries to infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens will go to jail and have to take financial responsibility for their proposed laws and regulations.

  • tiger August 4, 2017, 12:58 pm

    The Sandy Hoax was the reason for this false flag as so many more are. Stop asking for money to fight for our 2nd Amendment rights. ……DO YOUR JOB, Congressman !

  • Onthe Wall August 4, 2017, 10:57 am

    Who is really behind assault rifle bans? You have got to ask yourself WHO? In another article in this issue headline reads ‘HALF THE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF DETROIT ARE CONVICTED FELONS’. Am I reading this right they want to be mayor and in command of police and whatever else but as convicted felons they CANNOT OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION AND CANNOT EVEN HAVE A FIREARM IN THE SAME HOUSE THEY LIVE IN! So lets think about these assault weapons bans again? YOU THINK?

    • Russ H. August 4, 2017, 6:00 pm

      Consider the case of Marion Barry, the Washington DC mayor who was arrested, convicted and did time in 1990 for smoking crack cocaine – then was re elected mayor again in 1994. Unreal.

  • Mister Ronald August 4, 2017, 10:38 am

    I always thought that “””ASSAULT””” rifles were not legal to have without a special permit.
    A semi automatic anything is really not an “ASSAULT GUN”””
    I do have a question though,
    If you pick up a rock and throw it at someone – Would that be called an “”ASSAULT “” weapon ?????????
    Can all rocks be banned????????

  • JS August 4, 2017, 10:38 am

    I find it oddly confusing that we have to have any legislation beyond the limits of the 2nd AD. All laws that hinder, restrict, or otherwise confuse the 2nd are illegal, in my humble opinion…….just sayin…

  • SuperG August 4, 2017, 10:36 am

    Should I dare to dream? This should have been passed as soon as a State decided to infringe the Constitution. I wonder how many anti-gun morons will have a brain hemorrhage if this passes? I can only hope all of their brains will explode.

  • Bob August 4, 2017, 10:36 am

    Simply Repeal the “National Firearms Act of 1934″…. I know it’s simple and uphold the 2nd Amendment as written not Lawyerized!

    • Tim August 20, 2017, 11:21 pm

      I’ve been saying this for years. Best comment yet!

  • Mike MacKay August 4, 2017, 10:14 am

    For all the Nay Sayers, recall Missouri was a non concealed carry state, then we pushed and the measure was vetoed, then we pushed again and overrode the veto, Concealed Carry passed. Oh, but there is more for the braying asses of “Nay Say!” in Missouri we then pushed for Constitutional Carry, and it was vetoed and we overrode that veto as well.

    Power to the people through the Constitution. The days of Liberal Democrat slime balls putting chains on us are gone.

    • C. Aldridge August 4, 2017, 2:05 pm

      Only if the people keep working together against the progressive communist liberals.

    • Larry August 4, 2017, 9:52 pm

      Thumbs up

  • 33Charlemagne August 4, 2017, 10:01 am

    This would be absolutely phenomenal if it passes! It would totally undercut all those state campaigns funded by Bloomer Boy and all the other gun grabbing billionaires. Rather than saying it will never pass or getting into a pissing contest over terminology we all ought to be in touch with our representatives to support H.R. 3576!

  • gfrazzle August 4, 2017, 9:54 am

    Any center fire semi-auto rifle with a folding stock OR a pistol grip OR a flash suppressor and a removable magazine is now an assault rifle in California and must be registered. A fixed, non-removable magazine is required to avoid registration.

    • C. Aldridge August 4, 2017, 2:12 pm

      I wish they would split the state into California and West California. Then all the coastal liberals can have their socialist nanny state, and the rest of us can have our freedom. They can use I-5 as the dividing line. Then almost all of the hippy, pot-loving, socialist freaks would be in West California. They can have their capital in San Fransicko and have Gov. Moonbeam for their leader.

      • Lewis H Christenson August 5, 2017, 10:02 pm

        Check out the State of Jefferson movement here in N. Cali. The big issue is who gets to own the water. Gov. Moonbeam and his Brownstain cronies are trying to push through a huge pipe line from the central valley to S. Cal. Guess where the water come from?

  • joe August 4, 2017, 8:51 am

    HA … most Republicans don’t support the Second Amendment or any other liberty. Watch how nothing’s happening, just like years under Bush with total control.

    • Mark Davis August 4, 2017, 9:55 am

      You are full of crap! Every republican I know supports the 2nd Amendment. Every last one of them owns guns! The only people fighting to take away gun rights are the democrats!

  • Infidel762x51 August 4, 2017, 8:01 am

    All these state and local level bans violate the interstate commerce clause. you know, the clause they use every time they want to stick it to us. It’s intended purpose is to allow the free transfer of goods manufactured in one state to be sold in any other state. Enforce the ICC.

  • Tony E August 4, 2017, 7:21 am

    Like concealed carry reciprocity a small carrot on an insanely big stick that won’t pass.

    • Davud August 4, 2017, 12:51 pm

      yep. reciprocity bills are still gathering dust at the back of congress’s closet, even without the excuse that everyone is too focused on health care repeal.

      • Tony E August 7, 2017, 12:20 pm

        The fact that congressional republicans can’t agree on how repeal a law they used not so elaborate theater to show they were supposedly against it tells me everything the GOP could care less about gun rights period.

  • Pseudo August 4, 2017, 5:11 am

    Well let’s see I own what is commonly referred to as an AR15 and an AR 10 type weapon, but no actual “assault rifle.”

    So I guess the bill will only affect a small handful of people who can actually afford to own an “assault rifle.”

    I really find it insulting that GOA would post an article with this title misnomer, unless the article only relates to actual “assault rifles.” Then the title is correct.

    ASSUALT RIFLES my ass!

    • Blasted Cap August 4, 2017, 7:25 am

      I don’t know, maybe that’s why they put ‘Assault Rifles’ in quotation marks. Kind of means so-called assault rifles. You know like common usage stuff.
      I’m guessing you get your panties in a knot when someone calls a magazine a clip too. Ease off the caffeine a bit, take a few deep breaths, everything will be ok.

      • Pseudo August 4, 2017, 7:48 am

        No unlike you I try to set the record straight, especially when I encounter so many people, professional people at that, doctors and others who buy the hubris of folks buying “assualt rifles” e.g full automatic weapons, to them every time they hear AR15 they equate it to full auto guns. At least I attempt to stop this misuse of the term. So go back to your Koolaid.

        So do like you suggest unwad your panties, wipe your neither region, take a deep breath and possibly obtain some clarity, but I doubt it will accomplish much in your case.

        You just wannabe a keyboard commando,

      • kimberpross August 4, 2017, 9:20 am

        Unfortunately “Assault Rifle” is a political term developed by Clinton to create a negative connotation to a semi-automatic rifle common in the USA, for the purposes of undermining our 2A rights. And if you listen to the media today, that negative impression is alive and well. Your comment is, well let’s just say, ignorant.

    • Chris Jones August 4, 2017, 7:45 am

      The quotes make it read “so called assault rifles”.

    • Travis A. August 4, 2017, 8:20 am

      I also hope the bureaucrats would acknowledge the correct terminology when talking about weapons. I also own ARs’, (Armalite Rifle), M16s’, MAC10s’, M-11s’ and so on. None of any weapon I know of is called an “assault rifle”! We have semi-auto rifles, select fire rifles, submachine guns, light and heavy machine guns. The same goes with magazine capacity. If a gun (handgun in most cases) is designed to hold 15 rounds its magazine is called “Standard Capacity”, anything less is called “Limited Capacity”. One could say the 33 round Glock magazine is considered a “High Capacity” magazine but it was originally designed for the G18, which is a submachine gun so hi-cap doesn’t apply here either. The only logical conculsion one can make with this information is “assault guns” and “high cap mags” is made up grade a bureaucratic bullshit to scare the ill informed citizen into buying the crap they’re selling. How’s this for a law? Anyone who writes for a living, or is in a decision making position for us all (such as law makers) should have to own a fucking dictionary!

    • robert August 4, 2017, 8:40 am

      I hear what you’re saying and agree with you; however, this is exactly why the author enclosed “assault rifle” in quotes in the title. The quotes imply “so-called.”

Send this to a friend