Full-auto switches, often called Glock switches, are becoming more and more of a problem on American streets. They take a common handgun and turn it into a machine pistol, able to fire a significant amount of rounds downrange very quickly.
And since those who tend to use these for nefarious purposes aren't exactly known for marksmanship, it becomes a bigger issue since innocent people get hurt.
So no one should be surprised that Giffords opted to tout a story about a US Attorney's office in Texas that's trying to crack down on the devices.
Machine gun switches transform regular handguns into fully automatic weapons.
— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) June 10, 2024
As these devices flood our communities, US Attorneys for Texas have launched a new initiative to help state and local law enforcement get them off our streets.https://t.co/bTZQ6qp7aD
Now, for once, nothing Giffords says here is blatantly inaccurate. That's sort of refreshing.
Yet they still limited comments on this post for some silly reason.
Could it be that they didn't want people to point out that these devices have been illegal since before they were developed, that they can't be acquired legally by ordinary citizens, and basically disprove the idea that gun control works?
Let's back up for a second so I can explain, just in case someone reading this is unfamiliar with gun laws. Yes, you in the back, this is for you.
Machine guns of any kind became heavily restricted with the National Firearms Act of 1934. In order to legally own a machine gun, you had to file a particular application that required approval from a chief law enforcement officer in your neck of the woods, and a $200 tax before you can get the gun.
Then, in 1986, the law was changed so that you could only purchase and own guns made before that date. Anything made afterward was not available for lawful transfer.
Full-auto switches weren't developed until 1998.
As such, these devices have never been in legal civilian hands anywhere in the United States.
So yeah, they were illegal since well before they were developed and can't be acquired by your average gun owner lawfully.
In the process of this, though, they illustrate just how little gun control actually does.
First, we need to remember that these switches are often attached to guns that were illegally acquired in the first place. That alone undermines much of what Giffords tries to do, of course, but these devices are even worse.
At least with the Glock handguns, one can make the case that because regular folks like you and me can get them, criminals have access to the guns, even if they have to steal them. That's not exactly true since they get drugs just fine, for example, despite none of us keeping cocaine or meth in our gun safes, but that's the argument.
With the full-auto switches, however, that changes things.
You and I can't get them legally. That means criminals can't steal them from us. They have to get them via some other means.
And they are.
They're getting them from overseas or they're making them domestically. Either way, they're getting them despite law-abiding gun owners having absolutely no lawful access to them.
That suggests, at a minimum, that no amount of gun control will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. If they can get these devices--products that were made illegal before they were even designed--then just how can you assume they won't find a way to get guns?
You simply can't.
Yet Giffords is celebrating an effort to prosecute people for breaking a law that, at least based on their entire premise for existing, they shouldn't be able to break in the first place.
It's downright hilarious.
Or it would be, at least, if it weren't so sad.
