The House is holding hearings to lay the groundwork what are essentially“work-arounds” for anti-gun legislators. They’re looking for ways to punish gun owners, manufacturers, dealers and distributors since the Supreme Court seems insistent on upholding the position that enumerated rights – especially the right to “keep and bear arms” mean exactly what they say.
The House Judiciary Committee is “marking up” H.R. 1801, their latest Assault Weapons Ban. H.R. 2814 the “Equal Access to Victims of Gun Violence Act” is also up as well.
H.R.1801 is exactly what it sounds like: another proposed ban on those evil, black rifles that apparently possess the souls of a minuscule percentage of their users, forcing them on murderous rampages. Unlike the “Clinton ban” this version has no expiration date.
H.R. 2814, however is not exactly what’s implied. It’s not a crusade to protect innocent victims, it’s an attempt to repeal The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA prevents the manufacturers of firearms from being sued for the actions of others (you could use the word criminals) employing their products for nefarious purposes.
Recently, we told you that the CEOs of three gun companies, Smith & Wesson, Daniel Defense, and Ruger had been “invited” by House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Mahoney to testify before the panel – today.
They won’t be there. No, it’s not an act of defiance, it’s scheduling issues. But they won’t be there to either be lectured or grilled by the committee, so scratch one anti-gun photo op.
If you doubt this description of the less-than-cordial greeting she had planned, Rep. Mahoney’s “invitation” told the invitees: “the sale and marketing of assault weapons and the broad civil immunity that has been unfairly granted to manufacturers” would be part of the discussion.
She also wrote that the CEO’s products (these particular CEOs) “have been used for decades to carry out homicides and even mass murders.”
That would certainly have me rearranging my schedule to try and be there for Rep. Mahoney if I were Messrs. Daniel, Killoy or Mark Smith of Daniel Defense, Ruger and Smith & Wesson, respectively.
Fortunately, (for the rest of us) it’s likely that H.R. 1801 and 2814 aren’t going much further than the floor of the House. If they did manage to pass, it’s not likely Senators facing reelection are going to jump headfirst into an impending election with the “gun banner” label attached to their campaign posters.
But it is Washington. So common sense, unlike bad legislation, is always subject to repeal.
If observers who watch Washington for a living are correct, there’s not a lot to fear in the measures, other than the normal flood of near desperation fundraising emails from both sides of “the gun question”. It’s expensive to lobby Congress, and neither side is the least bit reluctant to remind their constituents of that fact.
After attending a conference call earlier this week regarding the impact of the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” it seems there’s been a bit of media exaggeration of some aspects of the legislation. As usual, positives (there are a few) have largely been ignored.
The negatives that have been exaggerated include the measure’s “Defining engaged in the business” -the guide for what constitutes a person moving from an “individual” to an “unlicensed firearms dealer” status. As described by many, it would immediately allow authorities to charge anyone privately selling a firearm with being an unlicensed dealer.
Not exactly accurate. While it does remove the personal transactional qualifier for “being in business” it specifically addresses “repeated conduct for the purpose of profit.” According to the NSSF’s Larry Keane, that does not include someone who’s selling -or possibly buying- firearms for -or from- a personal collection.
People who could find themselves afoul of the new regs would be people who build and sell -for profit- guns themselves or someone who regularly attends gun shows selling new guns (as Keane described them “new right out of the box”).
They would definitely qualify as being engaged in firearms commerce. The builder/seller would probably qualify as being engaged in the unlicensed manufacture and sales of firearms. That’s not been OK for a long time.
Perhaps the biggest positive impact of the Act has nothing to do with regulatory changes.
It’s Congress’ up-front admission of the fact there’s a mental illness issue that has as much -or more- to do with “mass casualty events” than an overstated gun problem.
The tool of choice for crazies is more than likely going to be a gun, but addressing mental issues is a problem the gun industry has addressed far more than Congress. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act removes any claim that mental illness is overstated. In fact, it may be the first positive step taken by Congress toward addressing one of the root causes of many societal issues.
Modernizing NICS databases (removing old/outdated information) as well as providing means for states to begin entering more current information into NICS records, including those juvenile records (where state law permits) that disqualify youths from long gun purchases are also in play. Had local/state information been included in the NICS-accessible material, at least two of the recent shooters would have been disqualified from legally purchasing guns.
As with any piece of legislation, Keane explains, there are more concerns over what’s not enumerated in the bill that what’s clearly spelled out. But at this point, it appears to have less impact on legitimate businesses than feared.
That, in a nutshell, is why the anti-gun groups are still furiously demanding more anti-gun measures from a Biden administration. It also explains why the House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings that are actually more “sham trials” than fact-finding.
They aren’t looking for facts, they’re blamestorming.
If you doubt that, there’s always Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) hearing, entitled “After the Highland Park Attack: Protecting our Communities from Mass Shootings.” As Larry Keane explains, we “expect this hearing to pass blame for criminal acts by crazed criminals onto our entire industry.”
