Below The Radar: The PISTOL Act

H/T AmmoLand.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- A while back, we discussed the difference between the ideal and the achievable. It is a conundrum that many Second Amendment supporters have, whether it is legislation or candidates. Our enemies often have the same problem, so we can take some small comfort.

Just as Dianne Feinstein has introduced a fallback measure to the semiauto ban she really wants, the same approach is being taken with regards to the Biden-Harris regime’s attack on AR-15-type pistols (among others). We have discussed the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act on multiple occasions, and it is the ideal solution to address that attack.

 

However, as Second Amendment supporters have often learned, the ideal solution isn’t always possible.

In this case, removing short-barreled rifles from the purview of the National Firearms Act may not be possible at the present time. In fact, to be very blunt, seeing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act become law in this Congress is a pipe dream, given who controls the committees and subcommittees.

This is not to say it’s a bad idea – introducing legislation and tracking the cosponsors is a good way to gauge what sort of support there is for efforts to restore our rights. That makes having a fall-back option a good idea. Enter HR 3823, the PISTOL Act.

What this bill, introduced by Representative Bob Good (R-VA), does is to maintain the status quo by stating that firearms like the AR-15 pistols with a stabilizing brace may not be placed under the National Firearms Act. This would end the present threat for the short term – provided that anti-Second Amendment extremists don’t increase their numbers in Congress.

This doesn’t come without trade-offs.

On the one hand, if the PISTOL Act were to be passed into law (say as an amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill), it may make it more difficult to pass the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act in the future. But given the realities that surround passing legislation, even taking a majority in the future won’t make passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act a given.

For one thing, the same filibuster that currently is preventing anti-Second Amendment extremists from packing the court and ramming through extreme legislation will be wielded by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Chris Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-Second Amendment extremists to block pro-Second Amendment legislation. It cuts both ways, and before Second Amendment supporters contemplate nuking the filibuster to pass such improvements, remember that Harry Reid’s use of the “nuclear option” for nominations backfired to the tune of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on SCOTUS.

The fact is, the PISTOL Act may be a suitable incremental measure in lieu of passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and polite urge them to support this legislation. However, it is no substitute for defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

Below The Radar Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2021

H/T AmmoLand.

The attacks on the Second Amendment is getting in to full swing.

We need to vote these CommiecRats out of office in 2022.



United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- While all the talk has been on gun bans – particularly in light of the Miller v. Bonta case – but let’s keep in mind that there are many attacks on our Second Amendment rights that could come aside from gun bans. One of the biggest avenues will be efforts to push licensing and registration.

Now, anti-Second Amendment extremists have long wanted licensing and registration. Take a look at statements Lyndon Baines Johnson made on two occasions during the passage and signing of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Already this year, we have covered various licensing and registration schemes, from bad pieces of legislation like the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act to abominations like the Sabika Sheikh Firearms Licensing and Registration Act.

 

Falling in between these two bad bills is one from Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), who has introduced HR 3740, the Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2021. This bill, while not as intrusive as the Sabika Sheikh Firearms Licensing and Registration Act, still is quite ugly for those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Her legislation would impose a federal license – unless a state had already set up its own version. However, it would require the fingerprinting of anyone who wanted to exercise their rights, a photo, and the longest term for the license would be five years. In addition, every handgun gets registered.

Incidentally, there is no provision for carrying firearms. Privacy protections are also non-existent – something that should be kept in mind when one thinks about how well the IRS has protected private tax data. In addition, there is no timeframe for the licensing process, meaning there could be endless waits. Ask Carol Bowne about that process. Being from New Jersey, Coleman cannot pretend that she does not know about what New Jersey’s laws did to Bowne, so it means that she couldn’t care less if others are killed waiting for permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights. There’s a host of other reasons to distrust the Biden-Harris regime with any new powers.

Let’s get one thing straight – the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms.

These licensing schemes, with or without registration, are intended to be a way to reduce the number of people who exercise those rights by creating more and more hoops for people to jump through.

It goes without saying that Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative to politely urge that they oppose this legislation. They also need to work to ensure that anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Below the Radar – ATF Accountability Act of 2021

H/T AmmoLand.

With Joe Pee Pads Biden and the DemocRats running Congress and the White House I do not see this passing.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/below-the-radar-atf-accountability-act-of-2021/#ixzz6y6rLCViZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, also known as ATF) needs a lot of reforming, to put it mildly. To be honest, the best use for ATF agents would be to have them stationed around the jails in places like Baltimore, Chicago, and other locales to pick up the criminals all too many Soros-backed prosecutors are willing to put back out on the streets and use the appropriate provisions of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 to put them away for a long time.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen. Instead BATFE bureaucrats are all too often making rulings that affect our rights with no accountability or oversight, save for the possibility of litigation, which can still be hit or miss – see the bump stock situation. Then there is what the Biden Administration wants to do to AR-15 pistols.

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), though, is working to fix that. HR 1961, also known as the ATF Accountability Act, establishes an administrative appeals process over ATF rulings. He is joined by Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX) in pursuing this legislation. Cuellar is that rare House Democrat who has not turned on law-abiding gun owners, to the rage of Bloomberg’s stooges.

In a press release issued by his office, Crenshaw said, “This bill will bring ATF in line with most other federal regulatory agencies and create an appeals process so industry has more options to challenge rulings other than suing the federal government – which many businesses simply cannot do. This bill will help ensure that the ATF cannot unilaterally impose rulings that impede on Second Amendment liberties and hurt jobs within the firearms industry.”

The fact of the matter is that while it would be ideal to refocus ATF on prosecuting the misuse of firearms in violent crime and/or drug trafficking, that won’t happen under the Biden-Harris-Garland regime. This means that we will have to deal with this agency making rulings that primarily end up hassling law-abiding citizens for a while. The current situation is unacceptable, but what can be done about it?

The establishment of an appeals process – even one that relies heavily on administrative law – still represents a marginal improvement, and it is one worth pursuing, given the success that incrementalism has had over the last 30 years.

By no means is this a perfect solution but reining in ATF bureaucracy has to start somewhere.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative to urge them to support HR 1961. They should also support NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF to ensure that the anti-Second Amendment extremists who control the House, Senate, and the White House are defeated at the ballot box in the 2022 and 2024 elections.

 

Below the Radar: Illegal Alien, NICS Alert Act

H/T AmmoLand.

Use these links to contact your House and Senate members.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- The National Instant Background Check System (NICS) has always been a flashpoint of contention among Second Amendment supporters. “No compromise” types viewed the push for NICS in 1993 as a sellout, while those who were of the incrementalist school of thought pointed out – justifiably – that NICS prevented a permanent waiting period.

In this light, we come to S 1261, the Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act, introduced by Senator Tom Cotton, a Second Amendment champion. This bill is a narrower version of the NICS Denial Notification Act, since it is strictly aimed at those in the country illegally. This falls under the “enforce existing laws” argument that some Second Amendment supporters have successfully wielded to halt anti-Second Amendment efforts in the past – see Project Exile.

Under 18 USC 922, illegal aliens are prohibited from possessing any type of firearm.

Regardless of your opinion on whether or not illegal immigration is a threat to the Second Amendment, this is a law that should be enforced, if for no other reason than a conviction for a federal felony charge serves as grounds for deportation. But on a more important factor, this legislation could be an opening for Second Amendment supporters in places where MS-13 runs rampant.

Already anti-Second Amendment extremists like Senator Chris Murphy are trying to put the blame for the rise in violent crime on law-abiding gun owners. Allowing that nonsense narrative to take hold would be tactical and strategic incompetence. Between the prohibition on illegal aliens possessing firearms of any sort, and the sentencing enhancements from 18 USC 924, a lot of bad guys can be put away for a very long time, and it would greatly reduce violent crime involving the misuse of firearms. Second Amendment supporters need to get ahead of this by highlighting just what current laws can do in some cases, and to put anti-Second Amendment extremists on record as refusing to use those tools.

When corrupt big-city mayors – or other anti-Second Amendment extremists – refuse to enforce laws, then demand that injustice be inflicted on those law-abiding American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the tools they refuse to use can expand the pro-Second Amendment coalition that makes winning elections easier. When we win elections and have Second Amendment supporters running legislatures and in governor’s mansions (or the White House), defending our rights is a much easier task.

The reality is that NICS will be part of the landscape for a while. The question is whether Second Amendment supporters can make lemonade out of a lemon. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and urge them to support this bill. In addition, they need to support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House – and those at the state and local level – are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Below The Radar S 1373 and HR 2890

H/T AmmoLand.

Sadly these bills do not stand a chance of passing as the  DemocRats control the House and Senate.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- When are you old enough to exercise your rights? This is a question that, quite frankly, America has been of multiple minds on. Just in terms of our Second Amendment rights, one can buy a long gun from a federally licensed dealer at 18, but must wait until reaching the age of 21 to purchase a handgun from the same dealer according to 18 USC 922. Oddly enough, possession of a handgun by someone from ages 18-20 is legal.

It doesn’t make any sense.

After all, at 18, people are considered old enough to serve in the military and to vote. They are also considered adults in terms of responsibility for criminal actions. Yet they are considered too young to smoke or drink. In fact, when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, the voting age was still 21. That did not change until the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.https://d1f478f3c207021d28818e6a5b73cecc.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Fortunately, on the Second Amendment front, Senator Cynthia Lummus (R-WY) and Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) have introduced S 1373 and HR 2890 to change that. In one sense, it’s flipping Dianne Feinstein’s Age 21 Act around to advance our Second Amendment rights. Similar legislation was not introduced in the last Congress, and that has been a mistake over the years.

When one considers the increasing momentum of concealed carry, especially given that roughly 40 percent of the states have constitutional carry, such a move is logical, especially given federal law on possession of handguns. If anything, Second Amendment supporters should feel disappointment in members of Congress for not taking this on.

One of the biggest reasons is that it undercuts Feinstein’s Age 21 Act, and makes it look a little bit more extreme. The fact is, the right to keep and bear arms, like the right to vote, is protected under the Constitution. We lose nothing by linking the two and gain much.

First of all, it would place anti-Second Amendment extremists on the defensive. This is always a good thing, especially when we can again measure the high ground. In this case, their defensive movement could alienate younger voters, a demographic that may already be shifting away from supporting restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.

Second, it illustrates their hypocrisy. Put it this way, for all that many anti-Second Amendment extremists cry about “voter suppression,” the same hoops are celebrated – in fact, derided as not enough – when it comes to the Second Amendment. If a photo ID is not an insurmountable hurdle for exercising your Second Amendment rights, then is it insurmountable for voting?

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators to urge passage of S 1373 and HR 2890. They also should encourage their state lawmakers to pass similar legislation at the state level. In addition, they need to support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House and at the state level are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Below The Radar -Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act of 2021

H/T AmmoLand.

Here we go again.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Bad ideas are hard to kill, especially in Congress. One of the worst has been this notion of licensing gun owners at the federal level. This was something anti-Second Amendment extremists have wanted since 1968 – and you can read how angry Lyndon Baines Johnson was that such provisions were not in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

So, for over five decades, Second Amendment supporters have thwarted this goal of our enemies (and people who wish to inflict injustice on us are rightly described as enemies), who think that treating law-abiding gun owners like criminals is the answer to the misuse of firearms. We know it isn’t, as the Brevard County Sheriff lays out. But that hasn’t stopped anti-Second Amendment extremists from trying.

While Sheila Jackson Lee drew a lot of attention with HR 127, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act, a number of other licensing schemes have shown up in past Congresses, and they will likely show up in the current Congress, and in Congresses in the future.

One of those bad ideas that keep turning up is the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act of 2021, known as S 770. We covered a similar version that was introduced in 2019 by Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Jamie Raskin. Van Hollen is again the Senate sponsor of this assault on the dignity and reputation of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Van Hollen, of course, doesn’t even tell states to impose it. He instead tries to bribe them with federal grants. It’s yet another insult from these Bloomberg stooges who seem eager to cast blame for high rates of violent crime on everyone but those who are really responsible.

Here’s the truth: Less than a fifth of the states in the Union require any form of licensing scheme. If anything, the overwhelming consensus (at least, what seems to be the consensus) among the states is that there is no need to license firearms owners at all. States like New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts are the real outliers when it comes to firearms ownership. Those schemes don’t stop firearms from getting into the hands of bad guys.

In addition, what was noted on the web pages of Ammoland back then still applies. This legislative proposal is pretty much asking to create tragedies like the one involving Carol Bowne. Anti-Second Amendment extremists often claim they are trying to save lives, but it was an onerous law they want to extend nationwide that cost one woman her life at the hands of her abusive ex.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose S 770, and instead seek to override state waiting periods and licensing schemes. They also should support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

 

Below The Radar – Firearms Safety Act

H/T AmmoLand.

S 788, the Firearms Safety Act sounds like a good bill.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- These days, the phrase “gun safety” has become something that makes Second Amendment supporters clench their teeth in frustration, mostly because anti-Second Amendment extremists have co-opted the phrase in order to inflict injustice on tens of millions of Americans for crimes and acts of madness they didn’t commit. Not only that, the hijacking of “gun safety” has obscured real efforts to help Americans safely and responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights, notably from the National Rifle Association.

One of those real efforts is S 788, the Firearms Safety Act introduced by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS). Senator Marshall is a Second Amendment champion whose efforts we have covered here before, notably the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, which he introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019. Marshall rightly deserved the backing of Second Amendment supporters for his 2020 Senate run.

The Firearms Safety Act provides for a $100 tax credit for a gun safe (eligibility is limited to one claim every ten years) and a $100 tax credit for firearms safety training (each year). Senator Marshall has even taken a precaution to ensure that these credits can’t be used as a form of backdoor gun registration.

If there is anything to quibble about, it is the paltriness of the tax credits, particularly for gun safes. A look at the Cabela’s site shows that of 77 gun safes and vaults, 43 are over $500. Furthermore, the safes are very different in terms of need. Some are meant for storing long guns, but others are meant to have a handgun available relatively quickly for home defense. It would seem logical to up the limit to twice in a ten-year period, and maybe to boost the gun safe credit to $250.

For training, the issue is not as severe, given that the $100 tax credit is available every year. The question, though, centers around what sort of training. The NRA has an online basic pistol course for $60. But some of those who anticipate using their firearms in a personal-defense situation may want more advanced training, like what the Massad Ayoob Group provides, and that can easily reach $2,000, plus lodging and other expenses. Here, the training tax credit should be upped, and not limited to one course.

It isn’t enough for Second Amendment supporters to publicly beat back the attacks from anti-Second Amendment extremists, they need to make being a responsible firearm owner easier, and in visible ways. The Firearms Safety Act is one of those ways that will benefit all of us down the road, but with the current anti-Second Amendment regimes, it will have a hard time passing.

Second Amendment supporters should politely urge their Representative and Senators to support this legislation. In addition, they need to support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Below The Radar – Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021

H/T AmmoLand.

It will be a long dark and hard four years for gun owners.



Congress – -(AmmoLand.com)- We’ve noticed that at times, some bad bills have turned up in Congress multiple times. Sheila Jackson Lee and Carolyn Maloney have both done this, with the latest versions of monstrosities introduced in past Congresses being HR 127 and HR 1004. We noted in the last Congress Bobby Rush had done the same with the Blair Holt Firearm Owner Licensing and Record of Sale Act, albeit that has not been formally introduced in the 117th Congress as of this writing.

However, it should be noted that re-introduction of legislation in Congress after Congress is a tool. That means that pro-Second Amendment measures can similarly be brought back by lawmakers who seek to protect our rights, not punish us for crimes and acts of madness we did not commit. One such piece of legislation is the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021.

 

In the 116th Congress, it was introduced by Roger Marshall of Kansas. Marshall, though, is unable to introduce it in the House this year. That’s because he ran for the Senate to fill a seat being opened by retirement, and he won that election. So, someone else has to sponsor this bill in the House. Representative H. Morgan Griffith of Virginia has done just that.

The benefits we noted when this bill came up in the 116th Congress are still there, and these days, there are new benefits to consider. The more guns that can be moved off registries, the better. But it also takes a lot of riddles from the very ponderous NFA system and into NICS. It’s not a perfect situation, but it represents a substantial improvement.

Now, given the current state of things in Washington D.C., this legislation doesn’t stand much chance, is any, of passing. Anti-Second Amendment extremists control the House, Senate, and White House. It will be very hard to get it through the lengthy process to pass legislation. It will likely die in the House Judiciary Committee.

This is the sort of bill, though, that can be useful gauge. We know the facts, and Second Amendment supporters should be asking candidates and elected officials about their position on this bill. Once they have this information, they must act accordingly, depending on whether the position supports our rights, or seeks to infringe on them. And as always, Second Amendment supporters should support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Below the Radar: S Con Res 40

H/T AmmoLand.

There is a link at the end of this article to contact your member of Congress to voice your opposition.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Why might Second Amendment supporters want to push a fight over a piece of legislation that may have no chance of passing? Sometimes, it can be a way to gauge what elected officials think of our rights. That is the case with any concurrent resolution in this Congress, given the current landscape in the legislative branch.

Democrats generally hostile to our Second Amendment rights control the House of Representatives. Republicans, who have supported our Second Amendment rights, control the Senate. This means that much legislation is caught in the middle of a standoff – neither side can push through what it wants.

 

So, why are we looking at S Con Res 40? The thing is, this concurrent resolution, introduced by Senator Kelly Loeffler, can be used to clarify where your elected officials stand, particularly on the ability of Americans to exercise the “bear arms” portion of their Second Amendment rights.

While many states have enacted “shall issue” or “constitutional carry” laws, some still cling to the very discriminatory “may issue” standard – notably New York, New Jersey, and California. To date, these laws have been standing against court challenges, and these states are not likely to change those laws legislatively any time soon.

Loeffler’s concurrent resolution would put Congress squarely against “undue restrictions” on the carrying of firearms. The actual text is very strong, citing Federalist 46 and the text of the Second Amendment. If passed, this resolution would place Congress foursquare against the highly restrictive carry laws in place in the few “discretionary” issue states – which in many cases have been “non-issue” in the application of those laws.

But concurrent resolutions do not become law. If anything, they are a sense of where the entire Congress stands, just as House and Senate resolutions are where that portion of the Congress stands. But the value of a concurrent resolution doesn’t just lie in getting politicians to take a stand one way or another, although, in this case, it would be interesting to see just how they explain how the application of carry laws in New Jersey and California (among other places) wouldn’t fall under that standard.

In this case, the concurrent resolution would also be a means by which to help bolster other rounds of legal challenges to the discretionary issue laws. By placing Congress on record against them, especially in terms of “undue restrictions,” this resolution can make the next round of legal challenges more likely to succeed, even if that improvement is slight.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to back S Con Res 40. It is well past time to get Congress to voice its objections to discretionary carry laws.

Below the Radar: Jaime’s Law

H/T AmmoLand.

There are links at the end of this article to contact your member of Congress to voice your opposition.

 

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- While we place a lot of the focus on defending against laws that target firearms, anti-Second Amendment extremists also target ammunition. In a way, this ammunition control can be worse – because those who exercise their Second Amendment rights need to purchase ammunition.

Now, those who exercise their Second Amendment rights will buy ammunition for any number of reasons: Actual use for personal protection or hunting, training and practice to ensure familiarity with the firearms that they might own, and even storing some for emergencies. These days, getting ammo is pretty easy, all things considered. In most states, you can either order online or pick it up at a local FFL.

 

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wants to change that, proposing S 1924, Jaime’s Law. A companion version, HR 1705, was introduced in the House by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This legislation would place background checks on any and all ammunition sales. It was also, like a number of anti-Second Amendment proposals, is also named for someone who was a victim of someone’s misuse of firearms, in this case Jaime Guttenberg, who was killed in the Parkland shooting.

Those living in California know what messes that the background checks can cause for law-abiding citizens who simply want to exercise their constitutional rights. It has been a host of red tape that these people have to deal with. Lucky ones can go across state lines to stock up, but it is often a big problem for people like Olympian Kim Rhode.

This legislation is particularly maddening for Second Amendment supporters. We know just how badly the bumbling cowards of Broward County botched the numerous chances they had to stop the Parkland shooting from happening at all. In fact, Scott Israel was rightly removed as Broward County Sheriff by Ron DeSantis. He’s trying to get his old job back – and hopefully, that run fails.

But Second Amendment supporters also know how the FBI fumbled at least one opportunity to stop it. Yet Blumenthal and Wasserman Schultz are instead punishing millions of Americans for this shooting – for a crime they did not commit. This is a clear example of an injustice being inflicted – and for what? It’s not about making the country safer.

The fact of the matter is that existing laws provide an opening to deal with prohibited persons who have even one round of ammunition in their possession. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose S 1924 and HR 1705.