It didn’t take long for the new anti-gun legislation to catch fire among the 2A community. H. R. 127 (click here) has all the go-to classics like banning automatic weapons and standard capacity (15-30 round) magazines. However, this proposed act also uses a new tactic. It makes gun ownership a privilege for the rich while crippling the poor. Out of all the reasons I dislike this bill, the discrimination against the common citizen is the most despicable.
As we have seen in the past few months, when politicians are in danger, they hide behind the same guns they now are trying to ban. It appears that it is ok for them to have the protection of these weapons, but it’s not ok for you and me. That hypocrisy doesn’t sit right with me.
This bill starts out by stating that you will need a license granted by The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to own a firearm. I have my doubts that the ATF is equipped to handle an operation of that magnitude. They are like the little brother of the FBI. If left to their own devices, they will screw everything up. The type of little brother that, while you’re at school, will delete your level 86 necromancer on World of Warcraft. If you had a little brother like that then you know the game is never the same after something like that, and now the spacebar sticks for some reason.
A quick Google search shows that the ATF fumbles major operations; Ruby Ridge and Waco being the most notable (hide your dogs when they come around just to be safe). When is it ok for an inherent right to be limited by a license? You have the right to keep and bear arms. You have it by fact of your existence. It is not something granted to you by the government like the privilege to drive. Your right should not be hampered because we the people make up the militia. The militia is necessary for a free state. Click here for my three-part post on the need for a militia and what makes up the Free State.
There are three different licenses proposed. The first is to own a firearm. This is a prerequisite for the other two. You need another license to display antique firearms in your home. Lastly, you need yet another license to own “military style” firearms. The process for obtaining each license is designed to hamper your ability to acquire a firearm.
Basic Firearms License
The first step to obtaining a firearm license is that you must be 21. My objection to that is simple. You have citizens joining the military at 19, or at 18 with parental consent. These service members are told to go use a firearm to defend our country, but when they come home, they are not be allowed to own one to defend their family. They wouldn’t be allowed to own a hunting rifle, a sporting rifle, or a pistol. Another disgraceful double standard.
There is also a requirement of 24 hours of weapons training. I agree you need to get as much training as you can. I am adamant that if you plan on carrying a concealed weapon then you need to be at the range practicing at least monthly. However, there is a difference between someone practicing and training on their own versus making it a requirement. Also, getting 24 hours of professional weapons training can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
I have suggested that if the government were actually trying to help its citizens, they would establish ranges for the public to access for free. At these ranges they should provide free classes on proper weapon handling and storage. As well as classes on proper deployment of a firearm, the different laws about firearms, and emergency first aid. Click here to see that post.
There is also a requirement for $800 of insurance. This $800 is required whether you own a simple single shot 22lr pistol or a high-end Olympic rifle. The insurance will be issued by the Attorney General (naturally). The insurance coverage is vague with a description of covering losses and damages. This is an annual expense. If you did not have the insurance one year, then you wouldn’t be able to own your firearms. The training requirement and insurance are the reasons I feel this bill is written so the rich can have access to guns and the rest of us are out of luck.
Guns are an excellent equalizer. If you are a parent and have multiple people to look after, if you are physically impaired, small in stature, or are being attacked by multiple attackers, a gun evens the odds. The people most at risk are also the people that don’t have an extra $800. These restrictions have the potential to make people look to the black market to own guns. If you can’t afford to legally buy a gun, but feel you still need one for protection, you are left with a difficult decision. This is how you create criminals out of what would otherwise be law abiding citizens.
The government has been treating guns like sharks (stay with me on this one). Every time there is a shark attack, unjustified fear and prejudice are aimed at the shark. Hundreds of sharks are needlessly killed in a twisted retribution for the victim. The more the public learns about sharks the sooner fear is replaced by understanding. Less violence occurs and the world is made safer. When there is a shooting, there is unjustified prejudice against guns and law-abiding citizens. Unconstitutional laws are proposed and many passed under the guise of safety. In reality you are more likely to die from hand and feet strikes, blunt trauma (like being struck with a bat), or being stabbed than you are from being shot with a rifle. Click Here to see the FBI statistics.
The last step to acquiring a license is a psychological evaluation. The standards of the test are also left unclear. The Attorney General has final say as to what the standards will be. If someone fails the psychological evaluation the process is unclear how or when they can get their rights back, if ever. This could lead people who would be helped by treatment not to seek it out for fear of permanently losing their rights.
After a mass shooting, I am disheartened when I hear people say, “if they didn’t have a gun this wouldn’t have happened.” As if to say that it’s fine that a person goes untreated for mental illness if they don’t have access to a gun. An offhanded callus statement about another human isn’t a good look. “If they would have been treated sooner this could have been avoided” is a better way to see the situation.
No one likes the idea of a sadistic madman with a gun. That’s common ground for everyone. If we focus on improving our homes, communities, cities, states and country, then someone acting odd would be noticed and handled well before it leads to a tragedy. It is better to be holding a high standard instead of living to the lowest common denominator. I’m not saying that it will fix everything and we then we can all sing Kumbayah. However, it is moving us in the right direction. If our representatives really had the desire to make our communities safer, they wouldn’t be prescribing us chemotherapy when we are diagnosed with a cold.
Antique Firearm Display License
When someone lists an item for sale in a classified, they set the price knowing there will be some back and forth before an agreement is reached. I am confident that this portion of the bill was the added cushion to give up during negotiations. If the proponents for the bill remove this section it looks like they are willing to be bipartisan. If the opposition still opposes the bill, they then look partisan and unreasonable. However, this section was never intended to come to fruition. The idea of this license and the requirements to get it are too ridiculous to be legit. If this license was intended to be a real thing, it stands as an example of how out of touch the writers of this bill are.
To begin, you need to go through the process to receive a firearms license. Then you will need to supply proof that you own the firearm. Nothing is mentioned as to how you would do this. A written letter saying you own it, or a receipt of some sort? What if you inherit it? Are we requiring the police to come to my house and verify it? No guidance is given.
The next step is so absurd that it leads me to think this license is the padding. You would need to describe the manner in which you will display your firearm in your own home. The Attorney General will approve or deny how you “display” your gun. This is as inappropriate as asking someone what kind of underwear their wife wears and where she keeps it. It doesn’t really matter and it’s none of your business.
Lastly, you would need to prove you have an approved method for storing your firearm. I’m left to assume that this is for when you are not home. For example, if you go on vacation and decide to lock up your firearms. The attorney general would need to approve of how and where you plan on storing them. I would guess many people would say they are on their boat.
Military-Style Rifle License
If you are unfamiliar with the anti-gun crowds fear of everything that LOOKS scary, let me welcome you to their irrational fear of black rifles. This license covers all the scary sounding guns like an AR or AK. In this section's list of specific models and pieces it doesn’t list anything that would makes these weapons more lethal than any other weapons. There is no mention of cartridge size. There is a major difference between an AR chambered in 22lr, vice 5.56, vice 300 AAC. This license is completely based on looks and perception.
The modern sporting rifles (MSR), or Military-Style rifles as they call it, are the most popular rifles in America. I can appreciate that they might look scary to someone who doesn’t know anything about them. However, if we go back to the shark scenario, the more you learn the less you fear. MSR’s are not in the top 10 causes of death in America. The flu is more likely to kill you according to the CDC. Click here for CDC Data.
The lack of professionalism by the writers of this bill is disrespectful. They don’t even take the time to find out what they are talking about. They mention flash suppressors and folding stocks as parts that makes them “military.” No one would call a smart phone military style because it accesses the internet. Canned corn isn’t military style corn. Both things were designed and used by the military but are commonplace today. It’s the same thing with the parts on this list.
Magazine Ban
Along with the licenses comes the magazine ban or high capacity feeding device ban. This is a classic. Previously the Prime House Co-Sponsor on the Ban of High-Capacity Magazines, Diana DeGette, had no idea what she was pushing for with her magazine ban. However, she was adamant that it would help. She doesn't understand that bullets get shot out of guns and magazines hold the bullets. There is nothing wrong with someone not knowing that information, unless you are the elected official co-sponsoring a ban on them. See the video here. Magazine capacity bans are in effect in many states including California and Illinois. They are ineffective as proven by their high homicide rates.
In addition to magazine bans, it is proposed that all ammunition 50 cal and above will be illegal. As any anti-gun proponent will tell you, the Second Amendment was only intended for muzzle loaders. Ironically, most muzzle loaders are 50 cal or bigger.
Firearms Registry
Included in this bill is the firearms registry or Database. This bill would make it mandatory for every firearm to be tracked by a national registry. This is a monumental task. For some perspective on how many guns we are talking about check out The Gun Collectives Video HERE. The catch phrase when talking about a firearm registration is, registration leads to confiscation! I have heard this slogan before and I decided I should dig into it a bit to see if it held water or if it was just catchy bluster. While a firearms registration doesn’t constitute confiscation, every firearm confiscation has started with a registry. I am currently writing another post to cover this topic in greater detail, but here are the wave tops.
Gun registrations in Turkey, Russia, and Germany in the early 20th century made it easier to disarm specific groups of people, namely the Armenians, rural peasants and Jews respectively. These groups were later persecuted and massacred. This was facilitated by them being disarmed.
In WW2 Germany not everyone had their guns taken away. The statement that Hitler took away everyone's guns is not true. He let the groups of people he liked have guns and took them away from everyone else. Same basic idea with Stalin in Russia.
In England there has been a registry or gun control of some sort since the 1600’s. Fear of armed rebellion has led to the confiscation of firearms through almost the entirety of the country’s history. The modern laws were established in 1920. As modifications to the law are added, the registry allows authorities to find and seize the contraband firearms.
Australia is one of the most well-known gun registration and confiscation or "buy back" cases. I have found several differences in opinion on the effectiveness of the ban. Detractors have sited everything from higher homicide rates and robberies, to a feral cat epidemic. Proponents say that the lack of mass shootings and lower homicide rates (I know, the numbers differ depending upon what source you read) is a sign of the efficacy of the law. Either way, registration led to confiscation.
Penalties
This is straight forward. Violators of the law will be fined “no less than $75,000 and not more than $150,000 or imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both.” I believe this would be per firearm or magazine. The average American home has 7 firearms. (known firearms divided by households in America) The potential for someone to be wrongly convicted is high. The punishment is steep. Along with the punishment comes all the disadvantages of having a felony on your record.
Conclusion
I am not a hardliner that says all gun laws are unconstitutional. Nor do I say the government has no part in firearms in this country. I am open to the idea that the government could make our communities safer through education. I recommend starting at the top with the people who represent the law abiding, gun owning, populace. That’s enough pointing fingers at them. Finger pointing doesn’t help and it makes me look petty.
Whether you think more gun control is the answer or you think all gun laws are infringing on your rights, we should all be able to recognize that this bill is not the right way to move forward. At its core it is giving special privileges to the rich and overly burdening the rest of us.
I have mentioned the major parts of this bill. This is not comprehensive of everything written in it. I recommend you read it for yourself. Spend 15 mins and read it. the jargon is minimal and it will give you a bit of incite into what is going on in DC.
Contact your representatives in Washington DC and let them know how you feel. They need to hear from you. If you do nothing, you can expect them to do whatever makes them the most money. Don’t lose your country to greed through procrastination. Contact them now! It is as simple as sending a text. Click here to find who your representatives are and how to reach them.
If you want to copy and paste these words feel free.
Dear (representative so and so),
I feel that H.R. 127, Sabika Sheikh licensing and registration act, isn’t in the best interest of our Country. There are better ways to move forward. I trust you will represent your constitutes and not support this bill. I eagerly look forward to hearing back from you and will watch the progress of this legislation with great interest.
Respectfully,
(Your Name)