I knew this was coming...infringement on the Second Amendment
Fact check: Democrat's bill would increase taxes on firearms and ammunition. It will also broaden an "assault weapons" ban and require a federal or state firearm owner license to "purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition."
Two Democrat bills, H.R. 5717 and the companion bill S. 3254 will increase taxes on firearms to 30% and ammunition will be taxed at 50%. They will also reinstate restrictions on the class of firearms banned from 1994 to 2004, which are generally known as "assault weapons."
H.R. 5717 is called "Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020"
Sounds politically correct, maybe even warm and fuzzy because it's supposed aimed at preventing gun violence and increasing safety. Who doesn't want that?
So, anyone opposed to the bill will be labeled as being against the promotion of community safety and for the increase in gun violence.
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga, introduced H.R. 5717 in January and Elizabeth Warren introduced the companion bill in February.
My guess is we haven't heard much about these bills because there hasn't been any school shootings or other mass shootings for the liberals to tout the need for increased gun control measures. Thankfully COVID-19 closed most schools in March.
But these bills are still active. Besides increasing taxes substantially and reinstating restrictions and bans on assault weapons, these bills would include "among other measures" (according to USA Today's fact check):
- Require individuals to obtain a license to possess firearms.
- Raise the minimum age for purchasing firearms.
- Require law enforcement to be notified when an individual doesn't pass a background check.
What "other measures" are there? I don't know, the USA Today article did not say. So, I started reading the bill.
Here's the text of the bill
Raising the minimum age to 21 may be a good thing for certain classes of firearms, but what USA Today doesn't explain is a license will be required to purchase all firearms and ammunition, and you can't get a license until you are 21. Then that license has to be renewed every 10 years. And this is a Federal firearm owner's license, or an equivalent state license. And there's an extensive required background check.
I'm actually okay with the need for people to get firearms safety training, and maybe there needs to be some kind of proof of training. But I'm not for a federally (or even state) mandated license, which inevitably means a database to track people, just so someone can buy a gun or ammunition. In the past it was more common for people to learn how to properly and safely use firearms. Now that kind of training, even on an informal basis, is becoming less common. We do need increased firearms safety and instruction.
Here's a scary bit of text "it shall be unlawful for any individual who is not licensed under this section to knowingly purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition."
From what I can understand, if this bill passes and you already own a gun or ammunition you are breaking the law and need to get licensed.
Requiring someone to get a Federal (or state) firearm owner license is a restriction and regulation on exercising a Constitutional right. There is nothing about requiring a license in the Second Amendment. The license requirement is the government authorizing you to have the Second Amendment right.
The bill also includes requirements of states to implement at least some elements of Red Flag laws. I won't go into that here, just know there is the potential to take away firearms from individuals just because of someone's "fear" of danger, not necessarily because a law was broken.
If you don't believe me about database collection, here's another bit of the bill's text for state requirements:
"the State shall promulgate rules and regulations to ensure the prompt collection, exchange, dissemination, and distribution of information pertaining to the issuance, renewal, expiration, suspension, or revocation of a covered license"
And under the Background Check Reform section
"(A) beginning on the date that the database is established under section 932(g), before completion of the transfer, the licensee verifies, using such database, that the purchaser has a valid—“(i) Federal firearm owner's license issued under section 932; or“(ii) qualifying State firearm license, as described in section 932(d)(2), for the State in which the transfer will occur;"
Do you think the database information will stay with the individual states? No way. Section 925C specifies the conditions for an Annual Report to Congress
While I am all for securing storing firearms, the bill makes this a law, and then requires the firearm to only be "under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user".
"(V) (i) it shall be unlawful to store or keep a firearm in any place unless the firearm is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by any individual other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user; and“(ii) for purposes of clause (i), a firearm shall not be considered to be stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user."
What I noted is "lawfully authorized user." While there are some provisions for hunting, instruction, target practice, and similar activities, it's still concerning that someone has to be lawfully authorized to exercise a Constitutional right.
The new assault weapons ban expands on what are defined as an assault weapon. There are specifics (Title V section 511) but the ban opens the way up to include a wide variety of semiautomatic firearms including rifles, pistols, shotguns, as well as the AK and AR variety of firearms and their derivatives. The ban also makes "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" illegal, with large capacity meaning more than 10 rounds. There is an exception for attached tubular devices on some .22 rifles.
You might think the increased taxes would go towards research and reducing gun violence, but you'd only be a little right. Under Title VIII, section 4181, only 39% of the taxes on ammunition are designated for gun violence prevention and research. What happens with the remaining 61% of ammunition tax isn't specified. Nor is any percentage of the tax on firearms designated for anything. So that means Congress gets to use 61% of taxes on ammunition and 100% of taxes on firearms for other things.
Title IX does allocate $50 million "for the purpose of conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention." That sounds like a lot, but lets look at some numbers.
I tried to find a reliable number for firearms and ammunition sales, but the closest I could find was a Forbes article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethmacbride/2018/11/25/americas-gun-business-is-28b-the-gun-violence-business-is-bigger/#35cb31e83ae8) that stated "Gun stores had a revenue of $11 billion" in 2018. Let's use the lower 30% firearm tax on the $11 billion, which comes to $3.3 billion. There would certainly be plenty of ammunition sold, but we'll stick to the lower tax rate. From those taxes collected, the amount allocated by Congress to the research and prevention of gun violence would be about 40.5% (39% is 1.287 billion + the $50 million which is another 1.5%), or $1.337 billion. If that's the case Congress would have $1.96 billion they can use for other things. I realize the 39% I used is only from ammunition tax, but I decided to use this on the entire amount. Remember there is no provisional amount of the firearms tax that is designated for use, so by taking 39% on all the sales I'm actually being overly generous. The reality is a much smaller percentage of the tax would go towards the designated programs and research. Compared to the Federal budget, it's a small number for Congressional spending, but it show how little will actually be used towards the purported purpose of the proposed law. The main purpose of the bill is to restrict and regulate Second Amendment rights.
Title VIII also has another concerning section. Currently firearms and ammunition manufactures have protection from lawsuits (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:7901%20edition:prelim)). The reason for this protection is to help preserve the right of the Second Amendment. Section 801 repeals this protection, opening the way for lawsuits against manufacturers. This will further increase the cost of firearms and ammunition.
Section 802 will repeal the exclusion of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from consumer product safety laws. This will not only increase the costs of firearms but it reduce the availability of firearms and ammunition. I do agree there needs to be safety testing on firearms, but the main reason these items were excluded was to protect manufacturers from lawsuits arising from the use of firearms. Firearms manufacturers should bear no responsibility for the misuse or abuse of their product, including the illegal or illicit actions of someone. The only good reason to allow someone to sue a firearms manufacturer is if it can be proven that the manufacturing process produced a product that failed to perform as designed and that failure caused personal injury or death.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything restricting potential lawsuits to future events. In other words, it appears the proposed law opens up the possibility for people (read lawyers inciting and encouraging people to sue) to sue firearms and ammunition manufacturers for past events. There is no statute of limitations.
With the potential for an explosion of lawsuits against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, there will be many who will go out of business, especially after a few lawyers get their clients their day in court and liberal-leaning judges execute exorbitant fines and damages against the manufacturers. With fewer manufacturers and their increasing costs, and with fewer firearms and ammunition available in the market, prices will skyrocket. This means only those with money will be able to afford to buy firearms and ammunition, and only if they want to be tracked by federal and state agencies through the licensing program. It wouldn't be surprising if a bigger black market with newly illegal firearms emerges.
The word "infringe" means to:
"act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on."https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/infringe"to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another" such as to infringe a patenthttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
My question is, do these proposed laws violate the Constitution by infringing on the Second Amendment, which states in part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
There are some parts of the proposed legislation that I agree with.
But there are often "good" parts in bad legislation so the proponents can point fingers at those who oppose it and accuse them of being against those good pieces. Gun control advocates and those looking to restrict, regulate, or eliminate Second Amendment rights will ignore or gloss over the bad parts, and they will pivot and politicize the "good."
Some proponents may even admit there are some parts that need to be changed or fixed. They will want to push to pass the bill to "do something" and tell us that it can be fixed later. But the bills, once passed into law, are rarely changed with much success. There is little, if any, "fixing" of a passed law. Politicians know this which is why they don't want to take the time to fix something before passing it.
However, these bills absolutely and without question infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There are significant parts of the bill that encroach, limit, undermine, and violate the Second Amendment.
Because of this infringement, the bills as written are un-Constitutional.
What if the government starts requiring licenses, or to be registered in some database, to exercise your right for free speech, the establishment and exercise of religion, or the right to peaceably assemble?
What if the government starts regulating and restricting the people's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? Wait, there is already some discussion of that regarding going into people's homes and testing them for COVID-19, and removing someone if they can't be effectively isolated and quarantined in the home. Not to mention there are plenty of senators and representatives and those in law enforcement who want to require "backdoors" to bypass digital encryption and other security measures that protect data, without having to use warrants.
There are those in government, at the state and federal levels, who are working to control your ability to freely exercise your Constitutional rights. As I've mentioned in other posts, they push their agenda through the guises of protection and safety, laced abundantly with risks and threats that stoke people's fear, to get the public to buy into the "good" that is presented.
For anyone who may be new to reading this blog, this is very applicable to the last days because there are conspiring people (I'd say men, but there are women as well) and organizations who want to take away our freedoms and rights, and impose their own restrictions on us. They want control, authority, power. They like liberalism, progressive movements, socialism and communism because on the surface a lot of people like the ideals, but in reality these forms of government create oppressive governmental control and increase the people's dependency and reliance on the government. Most people naively believe the promises of those in power to provide greater safety and protection, only to discover--usually years later--the true cost of their blind belief as the illusions of safety and protection disappear and reveal the restricting chains of dependency, oppression, and tyranny.
Freedom is not free from risk. Freedom is in becoming independent, self-reliant and having the ability to enjoy the rights and liberties given to us by God--who inspired those who framed the Constitution--without infringement by government and those who seek to exercise control, power, and authority over the us.
Comments
Post a Comment