I have threatened all my friends not to blow up my Facebook feed with a bunch of election season propaganda. I am an independent and don’t want to see all that GOP/Democrat venom.
However, one post had me curious; when I checked the facts, it turned out to be true. Or mostly true, which is saying something during an election year.
The post said that while people were arguing over masks and school openings and pandemic relief, the Democrats were trying to sneak through the most oppressive gun rights law in history.
First off, if a bill is introduced in Congress, that is public record, so it’s hard to say anything is sneaking through. Still, with our attention turned elsewhere, this could be a good time to pass controversial laws.
So what is this oppressive bill? H.R. 5717 — with the H.R. on the front immediately letting you know it originated in the U.S. House of Representatives.
• The first change listed on the bill’s summary (www.congress.gov page) says that a license will be required not just to purchase a firearm or to carry one concealed, but to simply own one. And that license will be required to buy ammo.
Wow, that’s just straight up challenging the Second Amendment that says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But let’s continue for now.
• The next step says it will raise the minimum age to buy firearms, or even ammo, from 18 to 21. Forget about plinking soda cans or shooting paper targets with a .22 rifle like I used to do with my cousins in my late teens. You wouldn’t even be able to buy the bullets.
• Next says that if you want to sell a gun to a friend you are required to have a background check first.
This would require you and your friend to go somewhere that can perform the check, such as a gun store — and you know that won’t be free.
Not to mention, this allows the federal government to in essence have a firearm registry, even though the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 made such a database illegal.
• Next says that if you have a background check that is denied, then you have to alert law enforcement agencies that this person tried to acquire a firearm without proper permission. Sorry, Uncle Fred, but I have to turn you in for not being good enough for that pistol.
• Now we have “restricts the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”
I get the idea here. The shooter in Las Vegas rained 1,000 bullets down on concert-goers at a fast rate with 13 rifles equipped with “bump stocks” that could be purchased legally at the time. And I’ve seen a dual shotgun feeding drum that could hold 100 shotgun shells. I can see why that concerns a lot of folks.
On the other hand, anybody who knows anything about rifles will tell you that the word “assault” means nothing. Many boring, John Wayne-looking rifles have semiautomatic firing ability. Assault is a word assigned to the ones that look like a military weapon, but have the same firing function. If you restrict the sale of semiautomatic weapons, that could potentially be applied to any pistol or rifle with that firing ability.
• The one that cracked me up is allowing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue safety standards for firearms and components. Really? Can you see the CPSC ruling any firearm safe?
On Aug. 5, the CPSC made WD-40 recall its X-14 Mildew Stain Remover from the market because the tile cleaner can cause skin irritation. Really? A powerful cleaner designed to get mildew off shower walls isn’t safe for skin? Wear rubber gloves!
Essential oils are used in diffusers and humidifiers for supposed health benefits when inhaled. Or they can be applied to the skin. Over the past month, several essential oil companies have had their products recalled because the CPSC has decided that all such products need child safety tops.
The commission heard of parents leaving the oils out where kids could get their hands on them, and then the kids tried drinking the products, so obviously it is the fault of the bottle maker and not the negligent parents using the oils.
For years the anti-gun lobbyists have pushed the idea that the gun manufacturers should share the blame for any misuse of firearms. The NRA and gun owners have countered that the gun doesn’t shoot people; people shoot people.
But here comes a safety commission that puts the blame on makers all the time. And this bill would give the CPSC control over firearms. See the issue here?
• Some of the other points in the bill I honestly don’t know the current laws well enough to know how this would fit in.
For example it says it would make trafficking in firearms a stand-alone criminal offense. If someone is illegally selling guns, isn’t that already a crime?
It says it removes the civil liability of gun manufacturers. What limitations are there now? I don’t actually know.
It would establish a community violence intervention grant program. Where would these funds come from? How much would it be and how would the funds be distributed?
• Back to my first point about flying in the face of the Second Amendment.
There are a lot of people who will say that the opening phrase means that guns are only guaranteed for the military. I am not one of those people.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …”
Remember, these were rebels who rose up against a government that they found oppressive (there’s that word again).
They believed there was a chance that the new government that they were setting up might not work and could even be a colossal failure. They feared they might have to tear that government down and start over yet again.
In order to ensure that they could remain free and not be taken over by a tyrant, the people needed to have the right to keep a weapon on hand. At least that’s my take on it. Many more educated folks than myself debate this topic all the time.
• Right now it looks like this bill isn’t going anywhere. It was introduced on Jan. 30 and on March 10 it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. It seems to have stalled out there.
Even if it did pass the House, it is highly unlikely to get through the Senate where 53 of the 100 seats are controlled by Republicans.
But as recently as 2013 the Democrats held the edge in the Senate so it is important to pay attention to what bills are being considered.
Source: https://www.mtairynews.com