Civic Register
| 6.2.22
House Democrats Advance Gun Control Package From Judiciary Committee
Do you support or oppose Democrats’ gun control package?
What’s the story?
- The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced a package of eight gun control bills favored by Democrats that will likely be considered on the House floor next week. The hybrid hearing was held on short notice, as the House is in the final days of a two-week recess.
- Democrats used their 25-19 majority on the committee to advance the gun control package, known as the Protecting Our Kids Act, on a 25-19 vote that went strictly along party-lines.
- The Protecting Our Kids Act is much broader than the red flag legislation that the House is expected to consider separately next week. It’s also different from the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to draft a compromise gun control bill that could be capable of getting the 60 votes needed to overcome the legislative filibuster.
- While the Protecting Our Kids Act may have enough support to pass the House as a broad package or split up into standalone bills, as several Democrats have requested, it’s unlikely to get sufficient bipartisan support in the Senate. Here’s a look at the various components of the Protecting Our Kids Act, which includes eight individual bills:
What’s in the package?
- The Raise the Age Act would restrict the transfer of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to individuals under the age of 21, as they can currently be obtained under federal law by 18 year olds. Full-time law enforcement personnel and active-duty members of the Armed Forces under the age of 21 would be exempt from this restriction.
- The Prevent Gun Trafficking Act would establish new federal criminal offenses for gun trafficking and related activities. A violation would be punishable by a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both.
- The Untraceable Firearms Act would require that all firearms and components which can be used to assemble a firearm have a serial number engraved or cast to allow it to be traced.
- Ethan’s Law would establish a framework for firearm storage regulations at the federal, state, and tribal levels. At the federal level, it would establish statutory requirements for firearms to be safely stored if a minor is likely to gain access without permission or if a resident is ineligible to possess a firearm. Violations would be subject to criminal penalties, and an improperly stored firearm would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.
- The Safe Guns, Safe Kids Act would require firearms on residential premises to be safely stored if a minor is reasonably likely to gain access without permission and a minor obtains the firearm and uses it in a crime or causes injury or death to themselves or another individual.
- The Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage Act would impose the same policies as the two bills above, in addition to more specific requirements for firearm storage: It would require firearms and ammunition to be secured, unloaded, and separated in a safe and locked with a trigger lock; or stored off the premises at a storage facility or gun range. Individuals who violate those requirements could be subject to criminal penalties if the violation results in the discharge of the firearm, civil penalties if it doesn’t result in a discharge, and the Dept. of Justice could seize their firearms and ammunition.
- The Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act would allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFs) to regulate “bump stocks” which accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon in the same manner as a machine gun. (Sales of bump stocks are currently prohibited by federal regulation.)
- The Keep Americans Safe Act would criminalize the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD). It would define an “LCAFD” as any magazine, drum, or other feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Grandfathered LCAFD could continue to be possessed, and there would be exceptions for current and retired law enforcement officers, and for those tasked with securing nuclear materials.
What they’re saying
- Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) used his opening statement to chronicle some of the mass shootings in recent decades and urge support for Democrats’ gun control bill:
“You say it’s too soon to take action, that we are politicizing these tragedies to enact new policies. It has been 23 years since Columbine. 15 years since Virginia Tech. 10 years since Sandy Hook. 7 years since Charleston. 4 years since Parkland and Santa Fe and the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. It has been 3 years since El Paso. It has been a week since we learned again that gun violence any of our children and grandchildren at any time and that no number of armed guards can guarantee their safety. It has not even been 24 hours since the last mass shooting, and who knows how long until the next one. Too soon? My friends, what the hell are you waiting for?”
- Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH) said in his opening statement, “No one wants another tragedy” and criticized Democrats for not working to put forward bipartisan proposals. He added:
“The bill before us is short-sighted and not solutions oriented. It’s a one-size-fits-all approach that punishes law abiding citizens while doing nothing to make our community safer. We all want to keep children safe in school. But this bill wouldn’t do that. This bill is just another Democrat attack on the Second Amendment, and it’s likely just the start. President Biden has said he wants to ban all nine-millimeter handguns. Where does it end? The American people expect and deserve more from us than political charades that rehash old ideas and don’t actually solve the underlying problems.”
- Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) said that Democrats will do everything they can to end the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster and expand the Supreme Court if necessary to enact gun control proposals:
“You will not stop us from passing it in the House next week, and you will not stop us there. If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it. We will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities.”
- Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) criticized Democrats’ proposals and said Jones’s remarks were “outrageous” and “very revealing”:
“Mr. Jones said several minutes ago that we Democrats are seeking to abolish the filibuster and expand and pack the Supreme Court. ‘We’ll do anything necessary,’ he said, and now we know what this is about. On Monday, President Joe Biden looked into a camera and said that he wants to ban 9mm handguns. This is one of the most widely purchased and used handguns by the law-abiding citizens of this country. In 2018, retired liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, and in recent days liberals in Hollywood and even Capitol Hill have started to echo that drumbeat once again.”
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: iStock.com / MariuszBlach)
The Latest
-
BILL: Should We Protect Vehicles From Climate Regulators? - Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act - H.R.1435The Bill H.R.1435 - Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act Bill Details Sponsored by Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.) on March 8, read more... Environment -
Corporate Environmental Negligence TrackerYou spoke, we listened. Introducing our new environmental tracker, focusing on corporate negligence. Take Action On Corporate read more... -
Six Young People Taking 32 Nations to Court Over Climate InactionWhat's the story? In the world's largest climate legal action to date, six young people will appear at the European Court of read more... Environment -
Sen. Bob Menendez and Wife Indicted on Bribery ChargesWhat's the story? Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his wife, Nadine, have been read more... Transparency
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
OK-
Guns don't kill people. 'Bad' people with guns kill people.
'Bad' people able get their hands on assault-like wespons designed to rapidly kill many people are a much bigger threat to the rights of other innocent people to not be murdered than they would if 'bad' people could not easily obtain wespons designed for the purpose of rapidly inflicting mass casualties.
And just what is this 'bad' person. Certdinly it could be someone that has some record of violence. Irrational rage or suicidal. But it could also be someone who just flips out after having a bad day, with no prior indication of issues.
The best way to assure that children are not denied their right to grow up by someone needing vengeance is to remove weapons designed to inflict mass casualties from the general populace.
For those who feel that they deserve to have access to these type weapons, let them pay an annual licensing fee to cover the costs of tracking these weapons and assuring that these weapons are still in their possession. Given their lethality require adequate liability insurance (or malpractice indursnce) if these weapons are lost or stolen and used in any crime.
Finally, require a delay period proportional to a weapons capability to inflict msss casualties in a short period of time - to give those who may be flipping out after a bad day time to cool off.
Proposing a series of separate bills will help find which ones have wide enough support to gain 60 votes in the Senate, provideing flexibility and supports negotiation to find a middle ground.
In addition studies show the largest reductions in gun deaths occur when a program of several gun safety measures are implemented together like:
1) automatic & semi-automatic weapons limitations
2) background checks
3) permits
4) gun storage requirements.
Current Trauma reported (2019) a meta-analysis of several studies concluded broader violence reduction strategies are more successful than just one like gun buy backs or red flag laws.
2016 study in Epidemiologic Reviews examined 130 studies conducted in 10 different countries where each study looked at specific change in gun laws and the effect on homicide and/or suicide rates and found gun violence declined after countries pass a raft of gun laws at the same time:
1) Banning powerful weapons, e.g. automatic & semi-automatic rifles
2) Implementing a background check system.
3) Requiring people to get permits and licenses before buying a gun.
South Africa's comprehensive Firearm Control Act (2000) contained all these measures which reduced gun deaths in 5 South African cities by 13.6%/year for 5 years studied.
Austria firearm law (1997) decreased homicides by 4.8% and suicides by 9.9% by:
1) background checks
2) limited access to powerful firearms
3) imposed rules about how gun owners had to store their guns.
Australia National Firearms Agreement (1996) decreased gun deaths 14%
1) confiscated 650,000 gunS
2) background checks
3) licensing rules
Missouri Repeal of law requiring permits (2007) homicide rate increased 25%.
Stand-your-ground laws — which go beyond castle doctrine in eliminating retreat duties outside the home as well — result in 6.8% increase in homicide rates, mainly driven (14.7%) in homicide rates among white males.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/2016-gun-control-study-epidemiologic-reviews-deaths
https://watermark.silverchair.com/epirev_38_1_140.pdf
https://journalistsresource.org/health/gun-buybacks-what-the-research-says/
I am a legal gun owner. California probably has the strictest gun laws. Has it helped? No! Banning assault guns would only benefit the criminals. Are we going to ban assault weapons from Nancy Pelosi's bodyguards? Or Gavin Newsomes?
We need:
Now, it’s time for our legislative representatives to do theirs.
1. Ban military-style assault weapons.
2. Require universal background checks for all gun sales.
3. Close gun sale loopholes and require background checks on all commercial gun sales.
4. Remove the prohibition on gun violence research by the CDC.
5. Ban bump stocks and limit the size of ammunition clips.
6. Pass an Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, a “red flag” bill, to allow relatives and law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis
And another interesting read about Armed School officials and Fatal vs. Non-Fatal injuries in Mass School Shootings from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a peer-reviewed medical journal published 48 times a year by the American Medical Association.
cruz, also not a DOOR issue, and from this limited study, disproves your 'armed good guy' argument.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515
There needs to be a well thought discussion. This knee jerk reaction will not get anything done. The house committee was about removing the filibuster and packing the court the get this done. This is the standard democrat way "we can't get our way so we will change the rules"
There needs to be something done to combat the increase in gun violence. It needs the be a well thought out plan. If the law needs to be changed, then it needs to be put to a vote and the American public needs to be the approving authority.
Ban military style weapons. Who will decide what is a military style weapon? Congress? Install a national gun regristy to what effect?
Joe said he doesn't want to harden our schools. Why?
Have congress and Joe answer these questions with a sensible answer, not a knee jerk reaction.
increase the age limit, insure that all records are accessible for a background check, take the guns away from felons, make sure that those found to have lied on background forms are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including our dear leaders son...
Then we might be able to come to a consensus on gun control.
Why dont the Democrats take the guns away from thier drug dealers?
No "gun control" is acceptable. Work on repealing all existing laws, not adding more unconstitutional laws
Other countries have figured this out, why can't we? You can say it's "not a gun problem" but if it's a people problem, we still need to create laws to prevent people from getting those weapons, no?
DCemsw, and RINO GOP are using this, like any "mass dhooting" to deny Onfe Fre American Citizerns of their God Given Rights . Traitor biden must be impeached NOW for dtating the false opinion that Our God Givern Rights are not absolute. As God Given Rights Our Founding Fatherrsa, and Our Sacred Constitution placed Our God Given Rigiven rights beyondc any Government, any level, any action. SCOTUS in the Woodrow Wilson era faqlsely denied Our God Given First Ammendant right with the False ruling thagt "one can't yell lFire in a crowded theater. Ond has a moral duty duty to yell Fire if a fire exists. No Government, including Communist Woodrow Wilson can be allowed protection from Free American Citizens stating the Truth.Our Second Ammendent was violated as criminals stole surplus arms from National Guard Armories to vpursue their crimninal careers. No Infrinbdgement on Our Sacred Second Ammendent, or any rights is accedptable. All Our God Given Rights are absolute, or they are meaningless. Do You wanbt to live in a totaqlatarian system? I don not want. Cpngresw must stand up to stop the communist, Fraudulent "P" bidern from ruining Our Exceptional Nation. Or Children, garanchildren, and any person living withing the once Sacrerd borders of Our once Exceptiohnal Nation dfepends on Congressw, or, perhaps SCOTUS to impeach the invalid "pres"; biden, and retuen USA to Our Rightful place in the World.
Our Sacred Constitution begins eityh Thou Shal not infrindge. This, and all of Our God Given Rights Were Absolute. Criminlal SCOTUS rulings, and Congresws's laws, and various State laws were aways Unconstitutional, illegal, Immoral, and com[pletely Evil.The Fact that Unammerican, Undemocratic, authortian, communist villians allowed Uncvonstitutional SCOTUS rulingd, or Govrrnmernt decisions does not alter thef fraudulent basis of such "decisions"" The admoinstrative, deep state that Vongressw hasw allowed to uncvonstitionally take control must be disbanded, or Our Exceptional nation is doomed.
"Thou Shall not Infrindge" means exactly that No "gun control" law can possibily be constitutional. all Our God Given, as defined ibn Our Sacred CVonstitutional are absolute. The faqilingsw of past SCOTUS rulingsw, or faqlsde laws do not matter. They were all false. No fraudulent "gun control" law is acceptable. there are enough laws in place to puniswh murder3, misdemonenors, or felonies. USA needs no more laws. HBiden must be required to enforce all of Of Our laws. This includesw immmigration laws.Invalid "P" biden must bde rdequired to fullfill his Oath of office, ergo enforce Ourt Sacred Immigragtion Laws. No fhange in laws can be considered until All of Our Laws are fully enforcee, without respect to the race, pr sex of the Offender, or the Victim. This is the reason that "Lady Justice" is blindfolded. BLM, SDZS, and all false "hage laws" deny true justice.
All Congress who recieve $ from the NRA , WAKE UP!!!GET OUT OF BED WITH THEM. Most of us support common sense gun laws.
All of us , I believe have a RIGHT to LIVE.
Keep it moving
Even Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the 2nd Amendment's protection of gun ownership is not absolute and can be regulated. In addition, every piece of empirical evidence along with basic common sense indicate that putting regulations on firearms and high capacity clips helps to reduce mass shootings.
The US has not cornered the market on mental illness, but we have cornered the market on gun massacres. Please do the right thing and support common sense gun regulation.
invalid, Traitor biden Lied. Caqnnons were not only allowed, but demanded under Our Founding Father's Constitution. Oue Exceptional Nation would have lost Our revelotion otherwise. Congress must impeach the Traitor biden before he does more damage.
Biden muat be inpeached for saying that Our Rights are not absolute. God Given, as described in Our Sacred constitution aqred, by ddrfination, absolute, and not. subject to any Government infrindgedment. Fraudulent "p" biden's statment defying his Oath of Office demands immediate impeachment.
It just seems to make sense and should be passed.
Liberals have no interest in reducing gun and violent crimes. Statistics are clear, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed in Democratic run cities, by criminals using either stolen guns or guns bought illegally. If their efforts were legitimate, these areas would be at the center of every gun legislation they submit. No logic indicates any reduction in gun crime by limiting guns owned by average citizens. They love to describe AR style rifles are "weapons of war". This is laughable! Although the ammunition is powerful, they are a far cry from a military gun.
If the liberals get these gun restrictions through, it will only be the start. The next thing will be any semi automatic handgun, since they "look like" the 1911 45 sidearm that the military used for decades.
It will NEVER BE ENOUGH! They will never stop. Guns are not the problem.
"Shall NOT be infringed!"
I support arms control
I do hope that there would be some kind of cash buyback program for "high-capacity" magazines - preferably at least $25.
They did this a few years ago in Baltimore, however there was unfortunately a two-per-person limit for selling magazines to the government.
In order for this to be a true investment opportunity, any given person should be able to quintuple and amount of money.
These bills have some very good points. However, my feeling is that they don't go far enough. Raising the age to 21 is a good idea. So many of these mass shootings are carried out by teenage boys. I don't see where any of the bills have addressed the issue of background checks. Most important is the glaring lack of a ban on assault rifles. There is absolutely no reason for assault rifles to be available to the general public.
I support these bills but I also believe we should do more. Assault style weapons have no place on civilized society. These high powered rifles do more than just wound, they tear huge holes through their victims, they are made to kill people and very quickly. We need a ban on new assault style weapons and develop a buy back plan to get them off the street and immediately halt production of these military style weapons for the public. These weapons as long as they are available will find there way into the hands of radicals and terrorists and kids.
I support gun control because it is a debate between individual liberties and the public good. No right is extreme, so when lives are constantly being taken away because of a certain right it is necessary that some limitations are placed on that right.
Criminals don't obey laws. This only hurts law abiding citizens, making criminals happier since less opposition to their crimes. History has also proven that tyrannical governments prefer unarmed citizens.