Democrats have pushed yet another troubling gun control bill through the House Judiciary committee, setting it up for a floor vote. The bill is H.R.8361 – Preventing Suicide Through Voluntary Firearm Purchase Delay Act.
This proposed law would create a new NICS database of people prohibited from obtaining firearms. Not criminals, or those adjudicated mentally ill; it’s to be a database of those stupid enough to voluntarily surrender their 2A rights. OK, perhaps those crazy enough to beg Daddy Government to protect them from themselves should not have guns. But you won’t see me “volunteering” for this. More on that point in a moment.
First off, the bill’s name — Voluntary Firearm Purchase Delay — is an outright lie.
When an FFL makes the NICS call, and the feds find your name on this list, the dealer is not told to delay the purchase. There’s no waiting period. It’s an outright denial just as if you were a convicted felon; the dealer is to be told that it would be unlawful to transfer a gun to you. Which is probably exactly what the dealer is going to assume (and might even call the cops on you).
And it would be unlawful, because this bill amends 18 U.S. Code § 922(d) to add voluntary idiots to the list of prohibited persons.
Personally, if anyone had asked for my input — and persuaded me that any such law was necessary (ha!) — I’d have gone a different route: Instead of adding suckers to the prohibited list and issuing denials, the dealer would simply be told that the would-be buyer requested that he not be allowed to buy a gun. Then it would be up to the FFL to decide, with specific language exempting them from any liability for not violating the buyer’s 2A rights.
The next issue is how one would get into that database. There are two ways.
First, fools can present a gov-issued photo ID in person (“where” isn’t explained), and give up their rights.
Secondly, someone can email a copy of a driver license along with a letter from a mental health professional that includes the “name and license number of the professional and the name and date of birth of the individual.”
Maybe I’ve got a couple of ‘noids showing, but…
Who has a copy of your driver license? Did the bank make a copy when you opened your account? Did some online or brick store make a copy when you bought an age restricted product? Or maybe an employer (or potential employer) wanted a copy to comply with E-Verify. I’ve done all of the above.
Just imagine someone with a copy and a grudge… maybe against you, maybe the 2A in general. They’ve got your name and date of birth. But that darned mental health pro’s name and license number…
I did one single web search, taking less than 30 seconds, that gave me the name, address, and license number of a random clinical psychologist. Problem solved. Interesting what you can find online; it’s probably good that I try to be an honorable person.
Another interesting point: When you — or some less than honorable scumbag — requests that you become a prohibited person, you/him can include up to five email addresses to be notified if you do attempt to buy a gun, or try to get off the naughty list. Maybe even “registry@atf.gov.”
Getting off said naughty list sounds simple enough. You just make the request — with the same documentation that got you on it — and the feds are supposed to remove you.
Three weeks after they acknowledge receiving your request. Maybe that is the “delay” they meant.
Or you can look up a mental health pro as above, and fake the letter. That’s supposedly going to get you out of the database in 24 hours. Lemme bookmark that psychologist I found…
Frankly the only good not as horrible part of this is that database victims are only prohibited persons under 18 U.S. Code § 922(d), not section (g). So you won’t instantly make yourself (or someone else) a criminal simply for currently possessing firearms. Unless they tack on an amendment.
Now for the bad news. I think this garbage has a fair chance of passing. H.R.8361 had two original sponsors; one a rabid Dim-wit as you should have expected, and one Repugnantcan. As you also you should have expected. Reps tend to like infringements for “law ‘n order” and this is only “voluntary.” If the Dims can move this to the floor and force a vote this session, before the new Rep bare majority takes over, it’ll go to the Senate, where…
“law ‘n order” and this is only “voluntary.” I think they’ll get the votes.
And then what other rights will they look at “voluntarily” criminalizing?
Gab Pay link (More Tip Jar Options) |
Govern me harder Daddy??
I can see where this would go sideways very quickly. The government disarms your victim for you. Helpful of them.
Article I of the Constitution declares that the Congress of the imperial government will have power to regulate the “Militia”. The most relevant words in Section 8 are “disciplining” and “governing”. Surely you agree that keeping potentially suicidal gun nuts away from guns is a prudent regulatory measure for any militia to impose. (Probably there ought to be strict sobriety requirements, too, no?) So the only basis for dispute here is how to keep the nuts away from “Arms” and “Arms” away from the nuts.
Now, if you don’t like the idea of the Congress having such broad power over each and every militia of each and every province, propose a new “Militia” amendment to cancel the homogenizing power. It would partially correct an obvious shortcoming of the 2nd article of amendment, which promises, in effect, not to deprive the empire’s own unified ruling class, aka “a free State”, the power and utility of “a well regulated Militia”. Remember that according to I.8, regulation comes from the Congress. So if the militia clauses of I.8 were deleted, fans of the 2nd amendment would have a reason to start believing in their conception of the militia as a bulwark against the predictable mentality of centralizers. Until then, however, these fans have only one or two flimsy court decisions which wrongly construe the 2nd am. as a license for every paranoid yokel to amass an arsenal if he so choses.
“Article I of the Constitution declares that the Congress of the imperial government will have power to regulate the “Militia”. The most relevant words in Section 8 are “disciplining” and “governing”. “
Read the whole thing: “such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”
That does not delegate any power to Congress to remove the rights of anyone, whether or not they’ve been called up.
Current law and SCOTUS decisions already provide a due process method of voiding 2A rights of “potentially suicidal gun nuts”. In a due process hearing, a judge can adjudicate such a mentally deficient person.
“only one or two flimsy court decisions”
Really? I’ll see your one or two and raise you Bruen, McDonald, Heller, Caetano, Miller, Truax, and Dred Sccott. Perpich would also figure into your novel legal theory.
Ah, NYC. That explains much.
And that’s about as much time as I care to waste on a troll attempting to denigrate Americans as “nuts, “fans”, and “paranoid yokels.”
Carl as always, answered this quite completely. And the Supreme Court quite recently stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, that it has nothing to do with a militia or the government or any other such nonsense.
The idea of the individual ownership of firearms was for self defense and for food procurement, and also for defense of the group as a whole. But the individual right to firearm ownership was well established and was what actual was a large part of the reason that the colonists began fighting against the Crown in the first place.