Gun control bills quick to pop up in Congress

By Ted O’Neil | The Center Square

Democratic congresswomen from New York and Texas each introduced several pieces of legislation that they say are aimed at curbing gun violence.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who represents New York’s 12th Congressional District, introduced a package of five bills, three of which she also tried to get passed two years ago, shortly before the third anniversary of the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida where 17 people were killed and another 17 injured by a former student.

Wikimedia Commons/Cimmerian praetor

The District of Columbia and 22 states currently have laws requiring background checks for some or all private gun sales, including those taking place at gun shows.

“There is no honor in failing to take action on gun safety,” Maloney said in a news release. “There is no honor in buckling to the will of the NRA and refusing to act to save lives.”

Maloney said her legislation would, among other things, make it a felony to give false information when purchasing a weapon and promote “smart-gun technology” that would only allow authorized gun owners to fire a gun.

Maloney also wants to extend the time the FBI must maintain records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, require gun owners to purchase liability insurance and close what gun-control advocates refer to as the “gun show loophole” through what they call universal background checks.

“Such checks would never be ‘universal’ since – surprise – criminals are notorious for not obeying laws,” the NRA wrote Tuesday on its America’s 1st Freedom blog. “Those who possess firearms could not even be compelled to register them, as such a scheme would be deemed an unconstitutional infringement against their right not to self-incriminate. The result is a drastic infringement on the rights of the law abiding, while criminals do what they do.”

The District of Columbia and 22 states currently have laws requiring background checks for some or all private gun sales, including those taking place at gun shows. In some states, these sales must be done through a federally licensed dealer, which includes a background check. In other states, buyers must first obtain a license from the state, which also includes a background check.

Illinois, for example, requires gun purchasers to register through State Police to obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. Illinois State Police, however, have been unable to meet required deadlines for issuing FOID cards and Concealed Carry Licenses, leading to monthslong backlogs for more than 200,000 applicants. Lawsuits are pending in federal courts over the backlogs.

The FBI conducted more than 39.6 million background checks on gun buyers in 2020, a record high, as President Joe Biden campaigned on gun control and violent protests broke out across the country.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told The Hill that such legislation will increase gun sales.

“If suddenly they said you’re not going to be able to buy any more cereal, everyone would run out and clean out all of the cereal out of the stores,” he said. “Same thing with guns. Every time they threaten to take them away, people decide it’s time to buy one.”

Jackson Lee, of Texas’ 18th Congressional District, is sponsoring bills that would require a license to possess firearms or ammunition and the license could only be obtained by a person 21 or older who has gone through a psychological evaluation.

Images courtesy of Public domain and Wikimedia Commons/Cimmerian praetor

15 thoughts on “Gun control bills quick to pop up in Congress

  1. I’m a gun owner and avid target shooter. Never would I want to lose my rifles and pistol. Yet, I fail to see licensing guns and background checks as a threat to gun ownership. Countries mentioned above for taking away firearms, didn’t have constitutions guaranteeing gun ownership. Also as mentioned, criminals don’t care about gun laws, any laws. Some gun related crimes are committed by people who weren’t criminals before their crime.
    In the US, vehicles of all sorts are licensed: cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, aircraft, snowmobiles. And yet, no one feels threatened about losing those possessions. We are licensed to drive said vehicles, but we don’t live in fear of being prevented from traveling, as long as we obey certain regulations.
    The citizens of the USA have guaranteed rights to possess guns. Licensing doesn’t threaten that right. It also won’t make any difference in the numbers of gun crimes.

    • SR,
      You write that “The citizens of the USA have guaranteed rights to possess guns. Licensing doesn’t threaten that right.” The second amendment states that “The right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.” Possessing guns is different than “keeping and bearing” as defined in the amendment and licensing and registration of firearms by government is clearly an infringement on that right. A study of the history will show that the Bill of Rights was adopted to define those areas in which government should have absolutely no authority to intervene.

  2. What’s going to happen when the states, like Texas and others, that are controlled by conservatives nullify their unconstitutional laws. It may force the issue to the Supreme Court.

    All of the gun control laws they are trying to pass are designed to entrap the low information voter. I will no longer obey any unconstitutional laws. Concerning the registering of my weapons, I WILL NOT OBEY ! Forcing me to purchase insurance for them, I WILL NOT OBEY ! Forcing me in my home how to store my weapons, I WILL NOT OBEY ! Paying a tax for them, I WILL NOT OBEY ! Carrying a concealed weapon, the 2nd Amendment is my permit. If they want me to comply with the above they will have to do so by the use of physical force. The politicians should be made to knock on my door when they do.

    Unconstitutional Official Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.

    Alexander Hamilton explains unconstitutional law in Federalist No.76; “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”.

  3. Sheila Jackson Lee is the one who needs to go through a psychological evaluation. She’s donating her brain to science but forgot to tell them to wait until her death.

  4. Look at recent history. They took away the guns from East Timorians and then went in and massacred them to take political control. Canadians, New Zelanders, and Australians and New Yorkers gave up their guns and now they are threatened with jail for not wearing masks and internment camps for violating quarantine or lock downs. The government is the greatest risk as our forefathers foretold.

  5. Expecting someone to buy a “smart gun” for self-defense or for hunting (are there even any for hunting?) is like asking an average Joe to buy a Ferrari to make trips to the grocery store.

  6. Events like Marjory Stoneman Douglas remind people that madmen and dangers exist to which we might at random fall prey. They incentivize people to arm themselves – for sound reasons. Would that an armed person had been in that school (and not one outside hiding behind a car – one inside with a VERY strong motivation to shoot the intruder). Progressives, paradoxically, use these events that tell us to arm ourselves to argue that law abiding citizens should not be allowed guns. Which seems completely backward. Taking guns from the law abiding alters the balance of power in favor of the criminals and lunatics. It’s on-the-job injury protection for them. As for the requirement of insurance – and the outrageous figure stated by Biden – How many (unjustified) deaths/injuries result from non-criminal activities? Even if the criminal perpetrator is caught, how likely is it that the criminal will have gun liability insurance? And what about criminals who use knives or heavy objects like a piece of pipe, both very common weapons of assault? No insurance for them? Will the manufacturer of a knife or a hatchet be subject to suit? These proposed laws weigh not only mostly but entirely on the people who aren’t the problem. This is legislative insanity!

    • You are correct. Ask Australia about how their total gun recall has worked. Armed criminals walk into your home in broad daylight, tie you up, and shake you down for your valuables. They can do this because they know the citizenry is not armed and cannot fight back. And their crime rate has not dropped.

      I do not know why this logic is lost on progressives. My only guess is that an armed citizenry is a threat to big government.

  7. I think we could all show this administration how much we support more gun control by taking our next “COVID stimulus” check and promptly put the money towards that ar-15 we’ve been thinking of buying but couldn’t afford.. Thanks Joe!

    • Buy the parts to build your own – no background check required and the ignorant Constitution-hating socialists are disgusted we still retain the right to do such things.

    • I think most 2A supporters have done that already (or at least the equivalent dollars). I am already planning a boating trip for the Spring also, if you know what I mean.

  8. Here we go again. The same old rhetoric being used by anti-gun legislators ad nauseum. We’ve heard it all during the Clinton and Obama administrations and we are hearing it all again. These ant-gun, anti-Constitution “experts” elected to Congress still haven’t figured out that criminals, and those hell-bent on committing a crime, could care less about laws. Chicago is a prime example with it’s overabundance of firearms restrictions. “Mass shootings” every weekend with very few arrests and, of those arrested, very few even being prosecuted to full extent of the law. It’s time for federal prosecutors to start doing their jobs. The Bob Marley song says, “Stand up! Stand up for your rights!”. It’s no mystery why our rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They were put there to to protect us from exactly what the current administration is trying to accomplish. If they have their way, exercising second amendment right to self defense will, in their eyes, cause citizens to be viewed as criminals
    Don’t let it happen! Stand up for your rights!

  9. How about adding some quality control analysis to the plan; such as the numbers of criminals that shot someone with a gun they legally purchased to prove the bills will correct the issue. And if you want pscy, evaluations lets start with school shootings that are done by people mostly under 22. They all showed behaviors prior to shootings. Ban them from buying guns or having access to guns starting at age 14.

Comments are closed.