The United States has promised its citizens the opportunity to, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Liberty is what gives us all the chance to be who we want to be and not forced to be something we don’t. Liberty is a double-edged sword. Other countries have been envious of us when we are able to excel with such a diverse country, but they ridicule us when we bicker amongst ourselves. The United States has ripped itself apart several times in its short history. But we always emerge better and more focused on progress.
With everything gong on gun legislation is not the most pressing problem our elected officials could be dealing with. I would prefer to see them focus on stimulus for small business and families in need, police reforms, support for communities damaged by riots, or any of the other problems stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. This reinforces what I have seen in the past of politicians pushing a personal agenda instead of focusing on what the people who elected them are in need of. That rant can be saved for another time. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope this was written a while ago and just happened to be introduced recently.
H.R. 5717 is titled “To end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities by strengthening Federal firearms laws and supporting gun research intervention and prevention initiatives.” The name sounds so serious it should grab everyone's attention. The meat and potatoes of the bill is pretty standard gun legislation of; banning certain firearms, restricting what you are allowed to use with the those firearms, etc.
The major part is the requirement for a license to be able to own a gun. I understand how some people would feel more comfortable by licensing all gun owners. It gives a feeling of control over the fear of
guns. We require licenses to practice law, medicine, and run businesses, so it isn’t hard to understand why someone would want you to get a license to own a gun. The obvious rebuttal is that none of those endeavors are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. You are not guaranteed to be able to practice medicine or run a business. You are guaranteed the ability to defend yourself. I have covered this in previous posts. If you haven't read them yet go check them out by clicking here. It will give you a greater understanding of the Second Amendment and why it still matters to us.
Being informed as to what is being proposed will allow you to make an informed decision as to whether you agree or disagree with what is being proposed. I would implore you to take action either way, contact your representatives and let them know how you feel. Click here to be taken to a post where I have links to contact your representatives and senators. The first thing the bill talks about is the license to own a firearm. To be eligible for a license you need to be 21 years of age, pass a written test, receive hands on training, pass a background check, submit a photo, and have never ruled to be ineligible to posses a firearm by a court.
The age restriction in this bill of 21 is an embarrassment. We would be allowing people
as young as 17 years old to go defend our country with a firearm, and at the same time tell them that when they come home they aren't responsible enough to have one. That double standard is insulting. Additionally, there are thousands of hunters and shooting sport athletes under 21 that are responsible enough to own guns. In terms of being responsible enough to handle weapons, being 21 is arbitrary.
I am a proponent of training. If you choose to own a firearm, you should be shooting it at least once a month. If you hunt only a few times a year, then at bare minimum before you go out you should visit the range and refocus your skills. Not just for safety but for humane reasons also. Shooting is a perishable skill. If you don’t stay sharp with your practice, you will not perform in a stressful environment. There are several ways to get training. Every range I have ever been to offers some form of class. You can find private instructors online that give classes usually for a fee. The internet is full of both live-fire and dry-fire drills you can do on your own. It is your responsibility to stay trained. Plus shooting at the range is fun. Go share the fun with someone. For some drills and training ideas click here.
There is a misconception when it comes to background checks. I have found that people who have never purchased a gun think you can just go to a store and buy one. Not so. There are background checks done at every gun store in the nation before any firearm is sold. Every vendor that sells guns at gun shows conducts background checks. The exceptions to having to perform a background check are things like inherited weapons or private party sells. As an example, if a father dies and passes down his rifle to his son, the son would not require a background check. When I hear people pushing for universal background checks, what I hear is a weapons registry. Historically, registry of arms turns into confiscation of weapons. Confiscation or forms of mandatory buyback programs can be argued to have been effective at lowering shooting homicide in other countries. However, overall homicide rates in those countries have remained consistent. At the same time, an unarmed populous have always been easy targets for harassment, exploitation, tyrannical dictators/leaders, slavery, and genocide.
The proposed background check in this bill includes the usual criminal history check as well as a face to face interview, letters of recommendation, and any other requirement an individual state deems relevant. According to the FBI, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) performed 3,931,607 background checks in June of 2020. The face to face interview for those kind of numbers would be a logistic nightmare. Add the requirement of the vaguely described letters of recommendation and it is easy to see how someone trying to purchase a firearm could be gridlocked. The horror stories from the DMV are a universal joke. I can only imagine the mess this would create. All for someone trying to exercise their rights.
These requirements, as well as statements from politicians wanting to ban weapons, gives me a sense that this bill is intended keep you from being able to purchase a firearm. It would be easy for anti-gun politicians to claim, “You couldn’t get a license, so you can’t have a gun.” However, the problem would not be the citizen but the process of getting a license itself.
There is something we could do to make the process simpler. Issue a gun license upon birth, but then take it away if they prove untrustworthy. It could lighten the administrative burden and help the environment by not requiring paper copies. Then do that with a myriad of basic rights. We could title it The Bill of licenses.
H.R. 5717 would also have a huge effect on the economy. According to the National
Shooting Sports Foundation, in 2016 the firearms industry was worth $51 billion. Guns have always played a large part in the U.S. economy. Proposed new restrictions would hurt domestic and international sales while the vague language could cause some companies to stop production out of fear of breaking new laws. In an already hurting economy this would be a blow to one of the industries currently showing a profit. I do not like the idea of drafting laws around keeping businesses in business, but it is something to be considered.
One piece of the bill that I found interesting is the idea of requiring a separate license to sell small arms ammunition. My initial reaction was indifference to the idea because as a shooter it didn’t seem to directly affect me. When I pondered on it I couldn’t see what problem this license would be solving. At best, it would be adding extra steps to law abiding stores and shooters. At worst, it could give too much control of ammunition to the government. If they denied licenses or limited the number of licenses issued that in turn could cause a bottle neck. Demand could out weigh supply and you could end up with a disarmed populous by lack of ammunition unable to protect itself. We would then be solely reliant upon the government for protection. With recent events we have seen how easily that can fall apart.
As with most gun bills, this one hits on magazine capacity worded as, “large capacity feeding devices.” I don’t know if it is a lack of understanding of a magazine or how a gun cycles that caused this verbiage to be written. A “large capacity feeding device” sounds ridiculous. If you really get into it, the magazine doesn’t do the feeding it just hold ammo. The bolt or slide are the actual feeding devices. They are what feed the round into the chamber usually assisted by a ramp of some sort. A “large capacity feeding device” in reality would be a single bolt, or the like, feeding multiple barrels at the same time. As interesting as that concept is, it’s not remotely close to anything this section of the bill is talking about.
We also have the term “large capacity” left open to interpretation. The Canik TP9SFX is one of the most popular pistols on the market right now. It comes with two 20-round magazines stock from the factory. I would consider that standard capacity. California and several states consider that large capacity. The modern sporting rifle comes stock with 30-round magazines. Most shotguns have a magazine capacity of about 5 rounds. Which one is large capacity? What does the capacity of the magazine matter if a law abiding citizen is using the weapon in a lawful manner? A shooter will still shoot the same amount of ammo when they are at a range. They will just waste more time crunching mags. However, if I am in a situation where I need more rounds to defend myself and I am only allowed low capacity magazines, then I would be handicapped for no justifiable reason. Are criminals going to carry the emaciated magazines if the law told them to? Of course not.
An arguable point is if “high capacity” magazines were outlawed then eventually there wouldn’t be any for criminals to have. There would be less on the street and therefore less to access. Let’s look at historical examples of when we have tried doing that same thing to items in the past. During Americas history, alcohol was public enemy number one. We went as far as to make an amendment to the constitution about it. That was a fiasco. A new amendment was later added to allow alcohol into society again. An interesting contrast between the early 20th and 21st centuries, during the COVID-19 shut down liquor stores were on the list of essential business allowed to be open during during quarantine.
Then we have the more recent war on drugs. Drugs have been outlawed or controlled for my entire life. At the same time they have grown popularity. Laws with mandatory prison sentences have done little to sway the use of both pharmaceutical and street drugs. I don’t have an answer as to how to solve that mess. However, more laws and stricter regulations don’t always get the desired results.
Other notable points in the bill
Banning “assault rifles.” Again, the verbiage sounds like the authors don’t know what they are talking about. I assume they are talking about AR-15’s, click here to read the post for an explanation as to why I think that is an archaic line of thought. In case you didn’t know AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. Armalite is the company that designed the rifle. AK in the AK-47 stands for Automatic Kalashnikov. Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the weapon. Neither weapon was designated or labeled as an, “assault rifle.”
Mikhail Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner, each holding the others design
Outstanding arrests could revoke your gun license. On the surface that makes sense. Only criminals have outstanding arrests, right? I can easily imagine a scenario of forgetting to pay a ticket you received while on vacation somewhere. Failure to appear would result in a warrant for your arrest. You probably wouldn’t get arrested, but you now have an outstanding arrest. This would invalidate your firearms license. If you are in possession of firearms without a valid license you could be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) which would make you guilty of felony charges. Scary thought that you could go from a parking ticket t felony charges. It is not hard to believe these charges would be used against you if you live in a state with gun control laws like California, Illinois, or New York.
Mandatory 7 day waiting period. You could only buy one firearm a month. Maximum of 10 a year. That includes shotguns, pistols and rifles. The average American home has 8 firearms.
I don’t want to come off as anti-law or anti-government. However, the citizens of the United States would be better served if politicians stopped looking at firearms as a plague and accepted the fact that guns are part of our
culture. I want legislation that stops using fear when talking about guns and instead spread understanding and educations. If the federal government really wanted to help, they should push for free classes on weapons safety, first aid, suicide prevention, and the gun laws applicable in the state and federal gun laws. Federally funded public ranges would be excellent places to teach the classes. That would be gun legislation I would get behind.
Subscribe below to follow my page and stay up to date on new legislation and interpretations of gun laws, as well as how to get involved in positively shaping your community.
Got something to say? Leave a comment. Thanks.