Below The Radar: Untraceable Firearms Act of 2019

H/T AmmoLand.

More DemocRat attempts to do an end-run around the Second Amendment.

Ghost Gunner Miniature CNC Machine
Ghost Gunner Miniature CNC Machine

U.S.A. –-( Second Amendment supporters should always remember the comments of Nelson “Pete” Shields – not only because it is a warning of what anti-Second Amendment extremists want, but because what Shields described is a multi-step solution.

The first problem was to slow down the number of firearms, which isn’t quite happening. In some cases, they are now trying to skip to the “second problem” Shields outlined, getting guns registered. One of the tools they are trying is HR 3553, the Untraceable Firearms Act of 2019, introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-RI).

Cicilline has introduced a number of anti-Second Amendment bills, and we will undoubtedly go over more of them later. But this one merits attention, as it targets one growing hobby of Second Amendment supporters: Building their own guns.

This is particularly the case with AR-15-type modern multi-purpose semiautomatic rifles. What is known as 80 percent receivers are sold, and people can then build their own firearms. This has gone on since before the United States declared independence. The 80 percent receivers are just the latest iteration.

Of course, if you build a firearm for yourself, you don’t need a Federal Firearms License. You don’t have to put a serial number on the gun. In short, this is a gun that is very hard to confiscate, which doesn’t make anti-Second Amendment extremists happy.

Cicilline’s legislation intends to change that, by making this long-standing hobby illegal, and slaps the hobbyists with a potential five-year federal prison sentence. It’s not like there aren’t already laws that address providing any sort of firearm to bad guys. Oh, yeah, there are – 18 USC 922(d) and 18 USC 922(g), along with provisions in 18 USC 924.

Really, if you want to deal with the alleged “issues” of those who make guns with the intention of providing them to bad guys, the tools are already there. They just have to be used. This is where programs like Project Guardian can make a difference, not just in reducing the types of incidents used to whip up attacks on our rights, but also in pointing out that we don’t need new laws – we can use existing laws and not attack the Second Amendment.

This sort of logic is quite obvious, so we certainly have every right to wonder why Representative Cicilline wants to push a new law that won’t solve the problem. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose HR 3553, and to instead support efforts like Project Guardian.

Below The Radar: Keeping Guns from High-Risk Individuals Act

H/T AmmoLand.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”

United States – -( Second Amendment supporters often focus on efforts by anti-Second Amendment extremists to do one of two things: Either ban firearms or to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. There is a third tack that anti-Second Amendment extremists also take: They try to expand the number of people who are ineligible to even possess a firearm.

This is the approach that Representative Robin Kelly (D-IL) took with HR 1116, the Keeping Guns from High-Risk Individuals Act. It is the sort of attack that Second Amendment supporters need to defend against but doing so can be a bit risky.

Why? Because, in some instances, people who pass background checks, and who then proceed to misuse firearms often had criminal charges that while they didn’t trigger the provisions of 18 USC 922, they did point to a potential for violence. Now, some folks probably should be denied firearms, something that is contemplated in the Heller decision, which states, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”

However, Kelly’s legislation is way outside the bounds established by Heller. The text of the legislation adds four new disqualifying conditions, and none of them are really well-established historically as valid reasons to deny rights. For instance, it has long been the case that juvenile records are sealed once a person is an adult, yet Kelly’s bill seeks to use juvenile convictions as reason to deny Second Amendment rights.

The provision on alcohol and controlled substances seems to be duplicative of what is already in 18 USC 922. The other two provisions, on crimes of violence and stalking, would catch a number of people convicted of misdemeanors into the “prohibited person” category.

Those are all bad enough, but this bill also appears to violate Constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws. In this case, as was the case with the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment involving domestic violence, new punishments are added to crimes adjudicated long before the bill was proposed. Someone who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor battery charge over a bar fight would find themselves a federal felon with the stroke of a pen if they kept a hunting rifle under this law’s provisions.

If stalking and crimes of violence are serious enough to take rights away, then politicians should be willing to take the heat of increasing the penalties so that they become felonies. Even if new categories are added to “prohibited persons,” then it should be made clear that such additions only take effect after the law is signed.

The fact is, there is no way to make HR 1116 even remotely acceptable. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely ask that they oppose this legislation.

Below The Radar: Restoring The Armed Career Criminal Act

H/T AmmoLand.

To quote Ronald Reagan “There you go again.”


United States – -( Sometimes, legislation is kept under the radar because if the legislation is passed, it might actually solve the problem. Anti-Second Amendment extremists and their allies in the media really don’t want Americans to know that certain provisions already exist in the law. After all, if the American people did know, they’d probably be much less receptive to infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

One such provision is the Armed Career Criminal Act. Enacted in the 1980s, it has a very simple premise: If you’ve been convicted of either three violent crimes or serious drug offenses, you get a mandatory minimum 15-year prison sentence. Or at least, that was the case until the Johnson v. United States ruling. The statute was gutted, and as a result, a lot of very bad criminals were released.

A pair of Second Amendment champions, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Representative David Kustoff (R-TN), have introduced legislation called the Restoring The Armed Career Criminal Act, known as HR 2837 and S 1541 to address that ruling.

According to releases from Senator Cotton’s and Representative Kustoff’s offices, they do this by dispensing with the old definitions of  “violent felony” and “serious drug offense” and going with a single “serious felony” that is defined as any offense that lands a person with a potential sentence of at least ten years in prison.

The need for this bill should be obvious, given the constant releases of prisoners we are seeing, and not just from the pandemic. In New York, before the coronavirus was even in the news, they were releasing violent criminals back on the streets. The price that can be paid for letting them out isn’t just in more people being victimized by those who should be locked up.

For decades, the misuse of firearms by criminals has been the preferred pretense to truncate or completely deny our Second Amendment rights. All too often, we see the victims, or family members of the victims of such misuse, wielded as propaganda weapons against our freedoms, We have rightly pointed out the failures to enforce past laws on many occasions, but the failure to fix the Armed Career Criminal Act looms large as a failure of our own making.

We know that enforcing certain laws works. Just look at the results from Project Exile 20 years ago. As a bonus, Project Exile was part of a successful strategy that resulted in a pro-Second Amendment president who put two of the five justices that struck down the D.C. and Chicago handgun bans on the Supreme Court. By pressing for Project Exile, we can reduce the number of propaganda weapons available to those who seek to take our rights away.

Second Amendment supporters should waste no time in contacting their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to support the Restore The Armed Career Criminal Act. It’s time that criminals pay for the crimes they committed with guns, not the law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Below The Radar: The Safe Gun Storage Act

H/T AmmoLand.

We need to contact our Congress Critters and voice our opposition to this bill.


New York – -( There are a number of ways to try to sneak an attack on our Second Amendment into law. That being said, the one big requirement for politicians – and legislation is to stay under the radar is for the politician to not really grandstand when talking nonsense about our Second Amendment rights.

Put it this way, Charles Schumer may have been known for pushing gun control, but he also has become a means by which many Second Amendment supporters can be motivated to act, whether by writing lawmakers, sending donations to pro-Second Amendment groups like the NRA, SAF, or GOA. This means Schumer’s mouth – and his introduction of legislation – is sometimes a liability for the other side.

If HR 4691, also called the Safe Gun Storage Act had been introduced by Schumer, we’d be seeing red, we’d be burning the phone wires with calls, we’d have piles of letters, and there would probably be so many e-mails that some wireless networks and e-mail servers would have given up the ghost.

But you probably haven’t heard much about this bill. That’s because the Representative who introduced it isn’t known for pushing gun control. Eliot Engel (who introduced the Flamethrowers? Really? Act and the PLEA Act) is better known for his foreign policy work. Hopefully, after learning about this scheme, loyal Ammoland readers can change that.

Now, we’ve dealt with some “safe storage” laws before. More accurately, they make firearms virtually inaccessible for self-defense. Quite frankly, if this was merely just a “safe storage” law, it would be bad enough. Engel, though, has come up with something even worse.

The text of the legislation is a Pandora’s box that sends power away from elected officials… and hands it to unelected bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Now, we’ve discussed other bills that open this door, the TASERS Act and the Gun Suicide Prevention Act.

Those two bills merely were a camel’s nose under the tent. Engel’s bill actually goes further than those two because it now tells the CPSC to develop standards and regulations for gun locks and gun safes. They have 90 days to start the process and it must be done in a year.

This is how Engel will open a Pandora’s box of anti-Second Amendment mischief. Once he has locks and gun safes under CPSC, the argument will then follow that what goes into the gun safes should also be regulated. That is why this bill is so dangerous.

It goes without saying that this bill needs to be stopped. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose HR 4691. There is no good that can come from letting the CSPC get regulatory authority that comes anywhere close to our Second Amendment rights

Below The Radar: The TASERS Act


We need to remain vigilant.

United States – -( Second Amendment supporters have no need to fear honest research on Second Amendment issues. The facts have consistently borne out the folly of punishing law-abiding Americans for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit – especially when said punishments (usually in the form of infringements on our rights) do not deliver the results promised. The real problem, though, is making sure taxpayer funds go towards honest research.

One thing Second Amendment supporters can take to the bank is that they will not get anything close to an honest study out of HR 4740, the TASER Access, Safety, and Effectiveness Review and Study Act, or TASERS Act. For starters, the bill’s sponsor should be a huge red flag in and of itself. This bill was introduced by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL), who also is known for the Blair Holt Firearm Owner Licensing and Record of Sale Act.

This legislation, like the Gun Suicide Prevention Act, is intended as a trojan horse – and in two aspects. The first, most obviously, is the generation of “research” in the form of phony “studies” that will be used to attack our rights.

In this case, Rush is trying to make people think he’s just interested in taser research, but a look at the text of this bill shows that the title is a lie. Because the bill is not just going after stun guns. Nope, Rush’s bill requires “a national study of firearms and tasers.”

A study to determine what, exactly? Rush has a list of four things: The number of successful self-defense attempts, as well as the number of accidental discharges, the types and severity of injuries sustained, and the long-term health implications. This is for both tasers and firearms. The real trick will be how a “successful self-defense attempt” is defined, and you can bet the description will be very restrictive and will exclude many of the ways a firearm in the hands of a good guy stops bad things from happening.

Then, of course, there is who conducts the study. Rush wants it to be led by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institutes of Health to consult. Furthermore, within two years, not only does the “study” get published, but the CPSC also gets to make recommendations. As we discussed with the Gun Suicide Prevention Act, this is just rife for mischief.

In other words, this study doesn’t just have involvement from agencies that were complete hacks, it also opens the door for “recommendations” that will likely line up with the Bloomberg wish list. At the very least, it should be amended to require that any “study” be reviewed by the Crime Prevention Research Center prior to publication – and that publication should not happen if it doesn’t pass muster.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators to urge that this bill be defeated. Failing that, it should be amended as described in the previous paragraph.

Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

Below The Radar: HR 435, National Gun Violence Research Act

H/T AmmoLand.

Use these links to contact your House and Senate members.

United States – -( One of the more pernicious attacks on our Second Amendment rights is legislation that doesn’t necessarily restrict rights so much as eases the road to getting restrictions later. There have been two approaches to this. One is the use of resolutions like S Res 110, which is intended to foreclose the possibility of Second Amendment-friendly (or at least non-hostile) solutions to problems like school shootingsH Res 702 takes a different approach: It ties attacking our rights as a form of justice.

Another is the use of legislation intended to gain taxpayer-funded propaganda, like HR 435, the National Gun Violence Research Act introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). Like the Gun Safety Board and Research Act we covered earlier, this is legislation that won’t directly attack our rights. What it will do, though, is give Bloomberg’s minions ammunition for future attacks on our rights.

The fact is, right now, Bloomberg really has a one-track approach in selling his anti-Second Amendment extremism: Fear. This has been a powerful motivator, especially in helping him generate a lot of anti-Second Amendment activism among suburban women. The emergence of Moms Demand Action/Everytown has been a major shift in the landscape in the fight for our rights – one that has not been in our favor.

While Second Amendment supporters have so far been able to hold off many of the attacks on our rights in many places, the fact is, the shift among suburban women over the last 20 years was one major factor. Now, Eddie Bernice Johnson is moving to give Bloomberg more ammo – and HR 435 now takes on greater importance.

One of the tricks that were largely shut down over the last 25 years was the use of so-called “research” to create studies that showed that our Second Amendment rights were a danger to public health. Now, though, with doctors and nurses getting a lot of public acclaim in the coronavirus pandemic, Bloomberg will seek to latch on to that.

One of HR 435’s provisions is to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on “gun violence research.” In her legislation, Johnson laughably claims, “Research examining the nature, causes, consequences, and prevention of gun-related violence, suicide, and unintentional injury and death does not constitute advocacy in support of, or opposition to, gun control policies or regulations.”

Well, Second Amendment supporters know she is lying in that legislation. Don Kates quoted one physician pushing control who expressed the view that our Second Amendment rights were a pathogen. It took a lot of fighting to get the propaganda that masqueraded as research shut down – and anti-Second Amendment extremists have bemoaned the loss of the source of valuable (to them) propaganda.

To avoid seeing the landscape shift even further against us, Second Amendment supporters need to keep the provisions of law that prevent our tax dollars from being used to fund propaganda that attacks our rights. Contacting your Senators and Representative and politely urging them to oppose HR 435 should be done as soon as possible.

Below The Radar H Res 702


Representative Ayanna Pressley (Delusional-MA) is one of the goon squad.

United States – -( You might notice we have touched on resolutions recently. While they do not have the force of law, they can be a very potent way of shifting public perception – and with that shift in public perception comes a shift in votes, in the legislatures at the state level, in Congress, and at the polls on Election Day.

One particularly dangerous resolution is H Res 702, introduced by Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). Pressley, one of the members of “The Squad” that gets so much airplay from the mainstream media, has made a serious propaganda play aimed right at our Second Amendment rights with this resolution.

For starters, look at the title of the resolution: “Recognizing that the United States has a moral obligation to meet its foundational promise of guaranteed justice for all.”

As a propaganda move, it is not too shabby. The 31-page resolution contains a massive laundry list of left-wing statements of “facts” and then offers what they consider as solutions for Pressley’s idea of what constitutes “justice.” You have to go to the end of page 25 and the top of page 26 of the PDF to find the portions that affect our Second Amendment rights.

Those two paragraphs, though, should disabuse Second Amendment supporters of any notion that will get anything but injustice from Pressley, if she had her way. Take a look at what she demands on the gun issue.

She starts off by saying she wants to reduce “gun violence” by “regulating manufacturers.” Of course, she’s trying to convince people gun manufacturers aren’t regulated with that line. The many federal, state, and local laws that are in force (see the NRA-ILA summaries) say otherwise.

Pressley goes further, to also call for “limiting firearm production and sales, including a permanent ban on assault-type weapons.” Now, we have discussed the injustice of these bans on multiple occasions, notably with schemes like those put forth by Elizabeth WarrenBeto O’Rourke, and Eric Swalwell.

Representative Pressley isn’t done, though. She also calls for “a mass gun buyback program.” Now, she doesn’t say whether or not it is mandatory, which Beto O’Rourke (now Joe Biden’s “gun czar”) was calling for in the wake of the El Paso mass shooting, but the word “mass” indicates she wants to take a lot of guns away.

One of the giveaways can be seen in some of the laws she has co-sponsored. Among them are the Gun Records Preservation Act (the House version of the Tiahrt Restrictions Repeal Act), the House version of Warren’s anti-Second Amendment monstrosity, and the Disarm Hate Act. She can also be expected to be a reliable vote for anything that advances an anti-Second Amendment agenda.

H Res 702 would be a huge advance for an anti-Second Amendment agenda. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and politely urge them to oppose this resolution.