NRA & USF Presentation on Economic Impact of Proposed Florida Gun Ban: Parts 1 & 2

Official Communication by Marion P. Hammer
Unified Sportsmen of Florida Executive Director
NRA Past President

Ban Guns Black Rifle Protest Protestors
NRA & USF Presentation on Economic Impact of Proposed Florida Gun Ban

Florida – -( What follows is a presentaion by Marion P. Hammer representing the NRA and USF to the Fiscal Impact Estimating Conference Friday, August 16, 2019. With follow up testimony on August 22, 2019 on the dangerouse economic impact of the currently proporsed gun bans.

Thank you for allowing me time to address some of the important issues relating to the economic impact of the gun ban amendment. I apologize for not appearing at your Workshop on July 30th.

I misunderstood what was to be discussed. Had I realized you would be addressing the nomenclature of firearms and some of the issues you touched upon, I would have been here.

Since it has a bearing on the issues we are about to address, I must address the recent attacks on Attorney General Ashley Moody by the sponsors and proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

It is important because the Attorney General’s evaluation has a direct influence on the economic impact of the proposed amendment.

Political attacks by people who either don’t know anything at all about firearms or are simply angry because they don’t like the truth are misplaced.

Despite accusations that AG Moody had “played politics,” informed people know that the Attorney General is duty bound to accurately report the actual effects of the amendment language and she would not “play politics” with her sworn duties.

While other Cabinet members might use their office as a podium to play politics the Attorney General, an attorney and former judge who is this state’s top law enforcement officer, would not do that.

When they attack her integrity, it speaks volumes about their lack of it.

In order to do an economic impact analysis, you have to know, definitively, exactly what is banned and the subsequent real-life impact.

First, there is no statutory or legal definition of assault weapon.

Whereas most definitions can be precise this is an imprecise term.

Assault weapon is an imaginary term that has no limit or boundary.

For example the term “assault RIFLE” is formal federal definition that means a fully-automatic or selective fire rifle – in other words a military machine gun.

Assault weapon is a term that can apply to any thing. For example if you had ever read police reports on crimes, you would have seen that they frequently say: the assault weapon was a baseball bat or the assault weapon was a tire iron, or the assault weapon was kitchen knife, etc.

In other words any object that is used as a weapon to attack another person or persons is an assault weapon. Assault means attack. Weapon means any object that is used to assault.

Previously, in failed legislative attempts to define assault weapons, proponents of banning semiautomatic firearms have listed a huge litany of semiautomatic firearms by name. This drafter took the easy way out and just banned all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

The amendment language is broadly crafted and is exceptionally deceptive. The general public, particularly voters reading it on election day, would have absolutely no idea what the language actually bans.

The term “assault weapon” is a term intentionally created to be deceptive and confuse the general public, including average gun owners.

In fact Josh Sugarmann the Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center a national anti-gun think-tank is widely quoted as admitting:

“Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Clearly the sponsors of the proposed amendment employed the strategy of hiding the intent by confusing the public when they chose to call it an “assault weapons” ban.

Professor Jon Mills, former Speaker of the Florida House, now a professor at the University of Florida is reported to have drafted the amendment. I know Jon Mills and he is not stupid, so we can easily assume that this language is intentionally deceptive and devious. My presentation will expose part of the deception.

The Attorney General is correct, the amendment language will ban all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

At your previous meeting, you struggled with the meaning of the word “capable.”

I don’t think you realized how important that one word is. That one word – “capable” – with respect to fixed or detachable magazines, ASSURES that all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns will be banned if this amendment goes on the ballot and is passed.

So, it is critical that you understand what “capable” actually means. Because, in this context it is a multi – BILLION DOLLAR word.

It is important review the exact definition in the proposed amendment. Under the language of the amendment, assault weapon means: “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun CAPABLE of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine or other ammunition feeding device.”

The fact is, any rifle or shotgun that is “capable” of accepting or using, a detachable magazine that holds 10 rounds or less is “capable” of accepting a magazine of any size. Magazines with a capacity of 3 all the way up to 100 rounds are in common use throughout the United States.

Therefore ALL rifles and shotguns “capable” of using a detachable magazine of any size would be banned.

With regard to “fixed” magazines. Fixed magazines are not “fixed” in terms of the number of rounds one can hold. The term “fixed” means they are simply not detachable.

The capacity of a fixed magazine can be extended. A tubular magazine, for example is a fixed magazine. In the case of tubular magazines some can be extended by simply purchasing a readily available tube extension.

As an example, tube extensions for the Remington Model 1100 – one of the most popular semiautomatic shotguns ever made – are readily available. With a tube extension ALL Remington Model 1100 shotguns are “capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds” and therefore, would be banned.

More than 40 years ago, the Remington Model 1100 entered the market. It was one of the first affordable, semiautomatic shotguns that was perfect for hunting, target shooting and home defense.

Remington: Model 1100 - 200th Anniversary Limited Edition
Remington: Model 1100 – 200th Anniversary Limited Edition

Remington Model 1100 shotguns are a staple in youth training programs that teach youngsters gun safety and hunting as well as trap and skeet shooting.

According to Remington, easily over 6 million Remington Model 1100s have been sold.

I assure you Florida has more than its fair share of that 6 million Remington Model 1100 shotguns tucked away in gun safes and gun cases all over the state. This is a popular shotgun for both casual and serious shotgunners – it is commonly owned by average, everyday gun owners.

Then there are the more expensive semiautomatic shotguns like the Benellis. Rather than a price tag in the hundreds of dollars range they run in the thousands. They have a wide range of uses from recreational trap or skeet shooting, to formal competition to hunting and home defense.

All Benelli semiautomatic shotguns are “capable” of holding more than 10 rounds. Whether it’s by using mini shells or magazine extensions or both, they are all “capable” of holding more than 10 rounds at once and would be banned.

How do you quantify the cost to the citizens of this state if these common, everyday shotguns are banned?

Any language about grandfathering is virtually useless because most people will not know what the ballot language says, much less what the actual impact is. The intentionally deceptive term “assault weapon” conjures up an image of military machine guns in the minds of many average gun owners. That is by design.

Most gun owners will have no idea that their legally purchased, legally owned, legally used and legally possessed long guns fit the definition of “assault weapon” and that they have to either register them with the government within one year or give them up or risk felony prosecution.

There are an estimated 22 million residents currently living in Florida. A recent gallop poll shows that more than 40% of households admit that they own at least one gun.

Personally, I believe that number is significantly low because many gun owners will answer those surveys in the negative because they don’t want anybody to know what they own. It’s a privacy issue with many people.

Nonetheless the polling numbers are significant. If this amendment were to pass, how would you inform the citizens of Florida that property they legally purchased, legally owned, legally used and legally possessed for many years before the election is now banned and they must register it so that government knows they have it (and come and confiscate it any time they want to) or that it is a felony to continue to possess it?

How do you communicate with them? How do you inform over 40% of 22 million people that they are going to become unwitting felons? What will it cost to tell 9-10 million people that they are going to lose their guns?

How do you tell people that the amendment is ultimately about gun registration and gun confiscation? Give them up now or later.

So your job is actually to come up with the worst case scenario of the fiscal and economic impact. I can tell you it will be pretty bad.

Short term, in addition to everything else, you have to consider the cost of creating and enforcing a gun registration system.

Long term you have to create a gun collection system to be in place no later than one year after the effective date. The amendment is silent on what people must do with their guns if they fail to get them registered.

What happens when a year passes and people didn’t know they had to register their guns? Are they supposed to just turn them over to government?

Clearly the intent of this amendment is that people turn their guns over to the government or risk having law enforcement confiscate the guns and put them in prison for possessing them.

What amount of money must the state devote to educating citizens? Opponents may say that the state has no statutory obligation to education citizens. But what about the duty?

Try telling a 68 year old retiree that his 20 gauge Remington Model 1100 shotgun is an assault weapon and that it is illegal to possess it unless he registers with the government. He’ll tell you that you’re out of your mind. This is America and we don’t do that sort of thing here.

Will people register their guns? Will people give up their guns? Will people go to prison because their Second Amendment rights have been trashed?

How do you quantify the cost to the criminal justice system of all these people who become instant felons on a date certain?

How do you quantify the cost to law enforcement of searching, arresting, detaining and prosecuting people who own Ruger 10-22 rifles, Remington Model 1100 shotguns and ANY semiautomatic long gun – and didn’t know they were so-called “assault weapons” and are illegal to possess?

How do you tell a 10-year-old little girl who got a Ruger 10-22 with a pink stock for her birthday that her rifle is an assault weapon and she has to turn it over to government or be arrested for felony possession?

Now, if I heard him correctly, at the last hearing, someone on this panel talked about using different calibers of ammunition in the same magazine to make it hold more cartridges.

Although it is technically possible in some calibers, it is generally not workable because you can’t just arbitrarily change calibers in a magazine to make it hold more cartridges. For example, you cannot use .22 cartridges in magazine that holds .223 cartridges, although it’s possible to extend the capacity size of a .40 S&W caliber magazine by using 9mm cartridges in them.

This is just one more reason of why it is effectively impossible to regulate firearms based on their magazine capacity.

However, with semiautomatic shotguns it is possible to change the length of a shell but not the caliber or gauge.

For example, a Benelli 12 ga shotgun that costs in excess of $2000 will hold 5 shots in the magazine and one in the chamber. If you use mini shells (shorter shells) it will hold 12 shells. So it is capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Magazine extenders are also available for Benellis that will add 8 standard size shells taking the magazine capacity up to 16 mini shells. Virtually all Benelli 12 ga shotguns have the same capacity from the $2000 Benelli all the way down to the $750 model.

Anybody who calls a Benelli shotgun an assault weapon is simply playing politics and doesn’t know anything at all about guns or law-abiding gun owners.

One more thing that I would point out is that there is no exemption or grandfathering or a grace period if a person inherits a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun. So I would advise you to take a long hard look at the economic impact of that flaw.

Switching now away from the impact on the individual citizens of Florida:

This amendment would be devastating to the firearms industry in Florida.

Not only would it shut down the manufacturing, distribution, and retail sales of all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, it would also impact the manufacture, distribution and retail sales of all firearms, all ammunition and accessories since many businesses would be forced to cease operations or relocate outside of Florida.

Without question, the negative economic impact from the loss of jobs, property taxes from businesses that are forced to close or relocate, and the loss of sales taxes to the state and local governments is huge.

Additionally there are federal taxes at stake. The Pittman-Robertson Act imposes an 11% federal tax on rifles, shotguns and firearms ammunition. This tax is imposed and collected at the manufacturing level.

Those taxes are then apportioned back to the states for use with qualified sporting programs. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regularly uses Pittman-Robertson funds for their youth gun safety programs, their youth hunting programs and their adult hunter safety and training programs as well as construction and maintenance of their shooting ranges.

At the last hearing there was a question about when does a gun become a gun?

When parts become a gun is relevant to the manufacturing side. Technically, under federal definition, if you own a serialized receiver, regardless of whether or not you own the other parts (barrel, stock, etc) you own a gun.

The closest I can come to explaining it, is to compare it to a car.

A serialized receiver is like an engine with a VIN number. It’s not really a car but with a frame and axles, some wheels, a body and a few other parts it can become a car.

A serialized receiver has no barrel, no stock, no trigger guard, no magazine, no sights, and a few other parts but in the eyes of the government, a serialized receiver is gun.

So once a manufacturer puts a serial number on the receiver, technically the manufacturer is in possession of a gun.

Let’s be very clear: there is no exemption in this amendment for manufacturers. Period

Further, there is no exemption for Florida’s Defense Contractors who manufacture rifles and shotguns for government – military – use.

And while IMPORTATION for use by military and law enforcement personnel is exempted, since the proposed amendment bans possession and possession by those military and law enforcement personnel and agencies is not exempted, that poses serious questions as to whether the exemption is actually valid.

Clearly, the manufacture for EXPORTATION is not exempted. Therefore ALL manufacturers who manufacture semiautomatic rifles and shotguns would have to shut down their businesses and move out of state.

This coming after Governor Rick Scott’s Enterprise Florida solicited and offered significant financial incentives to gun manufacturer’s to come to Florida to bring more jobs and to increase Florida’s economy.

In Broward County, a hotbed of anti-gun, gun-hating extremism, the Broward County Commission, voted to offer significant financial incentives to Kalashnikov USA to relocate from Pennsylvania to Pompano Beach.

Kalashnikov USA manufacturers the semiautomatic AK-47 pattern rifles. The AK is the ORIGINAL semiautomatic rifle targeted by gun banners with the fraudulent term “assault weapon.”

It was reported that the Kalashnikov USA project would create 54 jobs with an average salary of $51,266, which would be 115 percent of the county's average wage. County records estimated the project's total regional impact at $20.2 million.

Kalashnikov USA did, in fact, move its manufacturing facility to Broward County where it currently manufacturers semiautomatic firearms.

According to an article in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 3 months ago, gun manufacturing is a BILLION dollar industry in Florida – that’s billion with a “B.”

According to that article, in 2016, ATF reported that there were 155 MAJOR gun manufactures in Florida. There are actually over 700 Firearms Manufacturing License holders in Florida.

The manufacturing license covers manufacturing and gunsmithing. It includes major production of firearms in the hundreds of thousands to the custom manufacture of one or more per year.

In a 2016 report, Florida gun manufacturers reported producing over 3/4 of a million firearms, making Florida the No. 5 state in the nation in terms of firearms manufacturing production.

And in terms of total economic output, Florida’s firearms industry ranks No. 3 in the nation behind only California and Texas, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s 2018 report.

At a time when blue-collar work has been strained by jobs having gone out of our country, jobs in the firearms industry are paying an average of nearly $50,000 a year in wages and benefits, according to the trade group.

When it comes to the Retail Dealers Firearms license, there are 2,187 type 01 (Dealer) Federal Firearms License holders (FFLs) in Florida as of June 2019.

I believe many retail dealers will tell you that over 50% of their firearms sales are long guns and ammunition and accessories for long guns.

Of the retail dealers that I have personally spoken to, none of the “gun shops” will be able to stay in business. Losing the sale of long guns and ammunition for long guns will potentially put an end to stocking dealers in Florida.

The only gun sellers that will be able to survive are the big stores that sell extensive clothing lines, fishing gear, boats, ATVs and a multitude of sports equipment.

The negative impact to Florida’s economy would be huge if this amendment were to pass.

Bottom line, if this amendment goes on the ballot and passes, then 30 days after election day EVERY manufacturer, retail dealer, pawn shop and holder of a Federal Firearms License is in trouble.

Every semiautomatic rifle and shotgun that they had in their possession — whether it was:

  • 1.) manufactured, or
  • 2.) purchased at wholesale to sell retail or
  • 3.) taken in trade or
  • 4.) taken on pawn or
  • 5.) any other commercial purpose –

HAD BETTER HAVE BEEN MOVED OUT OF STATE or they could be facing felony charges and their guns will be confiscated.

And what about their employees? They’ll be out of a job the day after election day or packing up their families to move out of state to follow their jobs.

If I were the owner of one of these firearms manufacturing companies, I wouldn’t wait to see what voters do and run the risk of having 30 days to shut down my business and get all of my guns out of state.

If this is allowed to go on the ballot, I’d say, I’m out of here – these people don’t want our jobs, our taxes, and our contributions to the economy.

Florida incentivized manufacturers to move to Florida because we need jobs to strengthen our economy.

But you can’t run a business that is subject to the whim of zealots who plant their political podiums on a wave of emotion and blame products instead of people for criminal acts.

Clearly the fiscal and economic impact of this amendment is in the billions of dollars to the state and local communities not to mention the loss of legally owned property to millions of law-abiding gun owners in Florida.

I know that you have a difficult task in estimating the fiscal and economic cost of banning guns because bad people do bad things with guns.

I fear that if this amendment goes on the ballot and passes, you’ll soon be required to do the same analysis on banning cars and pick-up trucks because people drive recklessly and kill other people.

Or an analysis on banning matches and cigarette lighters because arsonists use them light fires to burn down buildings.

Or an analysis on banning forks and spoons because children use them to eat too much and get fat.

Respectfully, I don’t envy you your task.

Thank you very much. I’ll be happy to take any questions.

Part Two

Follow-Up Presentation of MARION P. HAMMER Representing the NRA and USF TO THE FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Thursday, August 22, 2019

After sitting through and participating in the first half of the August 16th Workshop and watching and listening to the second half, I was compelled to return for a follow up presentation.

Some striking things happened at the August 16 Workshop that we can’t overlook, and that clearly, in our opinion, need to be pointed out on the record.

The confusion – the raw, organic confusion – over this proposed amendment is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

Clearly, the sponsors of the “Assault Weapons” Ban Amendment are confused or else they are lying to confuse you and everyone else.

The fact is that no matter what people “think” the amendment says; no matter what they “want or don’t want” the amendment to say, the proposed amendment is a disaster of confusion. Words matter and the words are both deceptive and confusing – if not outright deceitful.

Having been involved with these issues for over 40 years, and having seen the behavior and tactics of people who want to ban guns from civilians, I can tell you, without question, some are practiced liars whose stock and trade is deception, disorder, emotionalism and blatant deceit.

They count on – in fact they depend on – confusion to get the amendment passed. That is why they used the intentionally deceptive term “assault weapon.”

In this case they hope opponents will not be able to educate people on their treacherous tactics and deceptive language. They hide behind people who are emotionally connected to victims.

They plant their political podiums in tragedy hoping that people who are normally level-headed will succumb to emotion. They hope people will acquiesce to having their rights stripped away, out of fear of being called insensitive.

I was particularly concerned over the continued appearance of confusion among members of this panel over the word, “capable.”

With all due respect, it doesn’t matter what you think it might mean. It doesn’t matter what any definition in any other body of law or court opinion means. This is new language in an entirely new application and context and it is individual unto itself.

When you try to use the definition of a handgun that says a handgun is a firearm capable of being held in one hand, you are ignoring the obvious about the context in the amendment language. It simply does not matter what capable means in the handgun context.

What matters is that the amendment language says “capable of holding more than 10 rounds at once.” Period.

  • It does not say capable as the firearm comes from the factory.
  • It does not say capable without attaching a magazine extender.
  • It does not say capable without inserting a larger capacity magazine.
  • It does not say capable without using mini shells.
  • It does not say capable without modification.
  • It does not say capable without using a different caliber ammunition.
  • It does not say capable without any internal or external modification by a gunsmith.

It only says CAPABLE period. There is no clarification, no qualifier, and no modifier.

Anything that you can do to a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun to extend the capacity of rounds means it is “capable” of holding more than 10 rounds at once. In reality, with most semiautomatic rifles, it is simply a matter of pressing a button and dropping out a 10 round magazine and inserting a magazine of 15, 20, 25 or greater capacity.

So, as the Attorney General has already pointed out, all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns will be banned under this amendment.

Consider, please, that if you professionals can’t agree on what capable means in this context, how on earth do you expect the average citizen to understand it? How do you expect law enforcement to understand it. How do expect anyone who has limited knowledge of firearms to understand it.

I am not criticizing your obvious confusion. I am compelled to highlight it. If you, as professionals who must analyze the amendment to determine the fiscal and economic impact, can’t figure out what is banned – despite having multiple fact finding Workshops designed for the purpose – the average citizen will have no clue what is banned.

A classic example of someone who doesn’t understand it is Dr. Charles Tate who made the August 16th presentation on behalf of the Ban Assault Weapons Now Committee who is sponsoring the amendment and circulating petitions.

I’m sure Dr. Tate is a very nice man and is well intentioned but just because he owns guns and claims he is willing to give one of them up, doesn’t mean he knows much at all about guns. He clearly doesn’t know what the amendment actually bans.

For example, he actually bragged about his “beautiful” $1600 Benelli Super Black Eagle semiautomatic shotgun and doesn’t think it is an assault weapon that would be banned under this amendment. He doesn’t think his Ruger 10/22 semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon that would be banned under this amendment. Well, he is wrong on both counts. He said [quote] I know an assault weapon when I see one. [end quote] Well, obviously not one as defined in the amendment.

He boldly said he owns and would be happy to give up his “German made HK 91 assault RIFLE.” I suspect he doesn’t even know what he owns.

If his words were accurate then his HK 91 assault rifle is a fully-automatic machine gun. That is a Class III firearm and if he owns one, it would not be banned under this amendment because he would be licensed by ATF to own it and it would have cost him a heck of lot more money than his beautiful $1600 Benelli shotgun.

He probably owns the semiautomatic version of the HK 91 rifle. He is just confused or uninformed. I say that because he consistently used the wrong terminology through-out his presentation.

He repeatedly used the term “assault rifle” interchangeably with the term “assault weapon” which is the actual term used in the gun ban amendment. If you recall, the federal definition of an assault rifle is a fully-automatic machine gun.

Further, Dr. Tate said that in order to extend the tube magazine on his Benelli Super Black Eagle shotgun he would have to [quote] “WELD a metal tube onto the current metal tube that holds five shells in order to extend that tube out and to allow for an additional 10 or 15 shells.” [end quote] That alone shows his lack of knowledge or confusion.

In fact, all he really has to do is “Google” Benelli Super Black Eagle tube magazine extension and he can buy an extender of from 2 to 8 shell capacity from Midway USA or several other retailers for around 100 bucks. No welding required, period.

I don’t think he meant to mislead, he is just uninformed. He is confused and is spreading confusion. And if people who watched him make those statements believed him and later didn’t register a Benelli shotgun, what are they going to say when arrested for illegal possession of an assault weapon?

Would saying that Dr. Charles Tate, a supporter of the amendment, doesn’t think my Benelli shotgun should be banned, be a good defense?

With regard to the Ruger 10/22, which Dr. Tate also said he owns, he implied that it would not be banned because he claimed the 10 round magazine is difficult to insert and extract. He said it is very time consuming to take out and then re-insert another one. That is such nonsense.

Dr. Tate also said [quote] “I know an assault rifle when I see one and frankly a Ruger 10/22 is not one of them.” [end quote] I don’t know if he was playing word games here but that is a very deceptive statement. He used the term assault “rifle” again and obviously a Ruger 10/22 is not a machine gun but it unquestionably is an assault weapon under the definition in the amendment. Dr. Tate obviously has not a clue what is banned by this amendment.

I personally own a Ruger 10/22 semiautomatic rifle. I purchased it in the early 1960s when they first came out. It is an exceptional plinking rifle and a great one for teaching youngsters gun safety and marksmanship. I have owned 5 round magazines, 10 round magazines, 20 round magazines and even a 100 round magazine and none of them are difficult to insert or extract. All Ruger 10/22s would be banned under this amendment.

Marlin Model 60 Rifle With 15 Shot Magazine
Marlin Model 60 Rifle With 15 Shot Magazine

What about the Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle? It comes – in the box – with a 14 round capacity. The model 60 has been around for more than 50 years and with over 11 million sold, it is one of the most popular .22 rifles ever sold. They fall under the definition of assault weapon and would be banned.

Dr. Tate’s definition of “capable” is also misguided and just plain wrong.

He said that “capable” means that [quote]“it was manufactured in such a way as to allow with simplicity the rapid insertion of a clip or belt with bullets on it like a machine gun or something that would allow that weapon to be discharged and reloaded within seconds and reloaded and discharged. That’s my definition of capable.”[end quote]

Dr. Tate’s lack of knowledge of firearms caused him to mislead this panel. With his talk of his “beautiful” Benelli Super Black Eagle and his defense of the Ruger 10/22, it sounds like he thinks the only guns that will be banned are guns that the gun haters usually call ugly black guns. But the amendment says absolutely nothing about how a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun looks or what it costs.

If this amendment goes on the ballot and passes, Dr. Charles Tate is actually going have to register or lose at least 3 guns – not just one as he tried to claim.

I spoke with Charlie Strickland of Talon Range and Gun Shop after he had made his presentation on Aug. 16. He told me that one of the supporters brought in by the amendment sponsors of the assault weapons ban amendment who was in the audience, told him, “Charlie, I don’t want to put you out of business.” And he replied, “BUT YOU WILL” if this amendment passes.

The reason I came back today was to make sure we get it on the record that there is an abundance of erroneous information being peddled by the supporters of the amendment and there is great confusion about what this amendment actually does. I believe that even supporters are being mislead by the amendment sponsors.

What happens when you think it means one thing and law enforcement thinks it means something else. I’ll tell you what happens – YOU LOSE!

Anything this confusing is not fit for the ballot because voters will be confused and tricked by the deliberately deceptive language.

At the last Workshop, I discussed the fact that people would not know what the amendment bans and could innocently not register Ruger 10/22s or a Remington Model 1100 shotgun or a Benelli shotgun. In these cases they could end up being prosecuted and convicted of felony possession of an “assault weapon.”

If that happens, once convicted of a felony, A PERSON WILL LOSE ALL OF THEIR GUNS because felons can’t possess ANY GUNS, Period.

But the biggest FRAUD of all is that Dr. Tate, on behalf of the Ban Assault Weapons Now Committee, attempted to make you believe that this amendment would save billions of dollars in medical costs associated with public mass shootings. But the fact is, the amendment will not stop these atrocities. And they know it – and YOU KNOW IT.

I am not questioning the statistics they used about how much the medial costs have been as a result of public mass shootings. What I am saying is that claiming this amendment will stop these tragedies and save all that money is the stuff dreams are made of. It is unprovable and patently false.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not understanding criminal behavior or acknowledging that public mass shooters are mentally unstable people.

Nowhere in this country have gun control or gun ban laws stopped criminal behavior or public mass shootings.

All you have to do to find proof is look at areas with the some of the most gun control, like Chicago. If gun control stopped violent crime and shootings, Chicago would be one of the safest cities in America. Instead, Chicago has dozens of shootings every-end week. The week-end of Aug. 2-4, there were 32 shootings, killing 7 and injuring 52. In shootings the previous week-end 8 were killed and 40 were injured.

Dr. Tate and the Ban Assault Weapons Now cabal are spreading misinformation about the cost savings. Banning guns from the possession of law-abiding gun owners will not save taxpayers billions of dollars in medical costs from public mass shooting. The claim is false.

To my knowledge, and we have researched it, there is no credible evidence – none – no study, no data, no proof that this gun ban will keep mentally unstable people from committing public mass shootings. I defy you to find any reliable data that proves that this amendment will stop these shootings and subsequently provide any beneficial impact to the economy.

My purpose today was to let you and everybody else know that this amendment is designed to be confusing and it is. Further, it is expansive far beyond what most people can comprehend.

Clearly, innocent, law-abiding people will be caught in a trap of confusion if this goes on the ballot. That confusion could lead to unintentional violations and subsequent felony convictions which would cost people their Second Amendment rights forever. Don’t be fooled. This amendment is a fraud.

Thank you for allowing me make follow-up comments. I’ll be happy to any questions.

Unified Sportsmen of FloridaAbout Unified Sportsmen of Florida;

Unified Sportsmen of Florida was organized in 1976 for the purpose of protecting the firearms rights of all law-abiding firearms owners in Florida.


Unified Sportsmen of Florida
110-A South Monroe Street
P.O.Box 1387
Tallahassee, Florida 32302

The post NRA & USF Presentation on Economic Impact of Proposed Florida Gun Ban: Parts 1 & 2 appeared first on