Below The Radar: HR 687 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act

H/T AmmoLand.

There is a link at the end of this article to contact the House and Senate.


United States – -( You may think this is legislation we’ve covered before. But you’d be wrong. There are a number of licensing schemes percolating in Congress, ranging from the Blair Holt Firearm Owner Licensing and Record of Sale Act to the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act to the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act.

HR 687, the Handgun Licensing and Registration Act, has been proposed by Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), joins the collection of licensing schemes. This bill is not as intrusive as the Sabika Sheikh act, and unlike the Blair Holt act, it only targets handguns. Still, this bill is a very bad piece of news when it comes to our Second Amendment rights.

What this bill does is to impose a federal licensing scheme on any state that doesn’t already have one. Now, this licensing scheme treats anyone who wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights like a common criminal, requiring a photograph and fingerprints. It’s an effort to stigmatize wanting to own a handgun, even though the Heller decision made it clear that owning a handgun is protected under the Second Amendment.

Coleman has not released any statement on this bill on her official website. That being said, Coleman’s track record has been that of a reliable vote against our rights. But what is particularly concerning about this bill it the lack of details.

Say what you will about the monstrosities proposed by Sheila Jackson Lee or Elizabeth Warren, but they at least told us what to expect. Coleman’s bill, though, is vague on exact details. The text puts in some qualifications but doesn’t discuss things like how much the fee would be. In addition, the federal scheme is only applicable in states that don’t pass their own licensing scheme. Of course, state licensing schemes can be even more stringent than the requirements in Coleman’s bill.

The fact of the matter is that this licensing scheme isn’t about safety. It’s about deterring Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Representative Coleman could, if she wanted to address the misuse of firearms, be pushing something akin to Project Exile or she would sign on to the Prosecuting Gun Crimes Saves Lives Act.

The fact is, the Handgun Licensing and Registration Act needs to be defeated. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge the defeat of HR 687.

Below The Radar: Freedom Financing Act

H/T AmmoLand.

You can use the links at the end of this article to voice support for HR 2079


United States – -( We have discussed the threat that corporate gun control poses to our Second Amendment rights multiple times. One of the threats is when companies like Salesforce have attempted to leverage their products to force companies to go along with infringements on our right to keep and bear arms. In many ways, the fight for our Second Amendment rights has now expanded to the boardroom and cubicle.

That said, the biggest threat is the financial blacklist. If banks, credit card companies, and credit unions refuse to do business with Second Amendment supporters or the firearms industry, any legal battle won at the Supreme Court can be rendered meaningless.

The good news is that there is legislation that can shut off the financial blacklist. Representative Roger Williams (R-TX) has introduced HR 2079, the Freedom Financing Act. This legislation pretty much tells major banks, credit unions, and credit card companies that they cannot discriminate on the basis of “reputational risks.”

This is an important phrase. The term “reputational risk” has invoked by Andrew Cuomo when he began abusing financial regulations to silence the National Rifle Association. With the passage of this legislation, Cuomo’s campaign would be rendered toothless. That alone would be an important win and could allow the NRA to sort out its internal issues without existential threat.

But this bill doesn’t stop with securing the NRA. The bill extends security to every pro-Second Amendment group, every firearms manufacturer, and even every federally licensed dealer. Because the same “reputational risk” nonsense could be aimed at, say, a company making modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms or a local gun store.

If enacted into law, HR 2079 ends the potential for “reputational risk” to be used against our Second Amendment rights. But this legislation also goes further, includes language that explicitly prohibits banks, credit unions, and credit card companies from discriminating against FFLs, be they manufacturers, importers, or dealers. The bill also backs it up with civil penalties of up to $10,000. But the real teeth in the bill is the prohibition of using the Automated Clearing House Network for banks that discriminate against FFLs.

To put it mildly, this is a bill that will make a huge difference in preventing the use of financial blacklisting to attack our rights. It goes without saying that Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to support HR 2079.

Below The Radar: The NICS Review Act

H/T AmmoLand.

Here is a link to the House and the Senate.

United States – -( The National Instant Check System has been a point of contention among Second Amendment supporters since the passage of the Brady Act in 1993. Some view it as an infringement and a “compromise.” Others viewed it as averting a far worse situation.

It goes without saying that at a bare minimum, the system clearly needs fixes, and the Firearm Due Process Protection Act is something that should be passed as soon as possible. But anti-Second Amendment extremists have hated the National Instant Check System, too. Why?

Because, despite claims they made at the time, it was never about background checks. At a minimum, many anti-Second Amendment extremists ultimately want a “needs-based” licensing scheme. In other words, you would need to prove to the government that you needed to own a certain gun. At which point, they would deign to grant you the license to own said firearm.

So, they have their own “fixes” in mind for NICS, and they are not along the lines Second Amendment supporters would like. One of those proposing a “NICS fix” that makes things worse is Representative Carolyn Maloney, who’s introduced HR 821, the NICS Review Act.

The NICS Review Act is intended to start the process of turning NICS into a registration system. Under current law, information on transactions that have not been denied is to be destroyed within 24 hours. The intent is to preserve the privacy of Americans who choose to exercise a constitutional right. Maloney has talked about privacy before and it has been a big deal for her on other issues.

But with the NICS Review Act, she wants the FBI to hold on to data about non-denied firearms transactions for at least 90 days. That is a huge change on two counts. One, the FBI can retain the records for much longer, almost three months. That’s bad enough for all sorts of mischief, and Maloney’s long anti-Second Amendment track record points to a desire to at least enable mischief targeting our rights.

But the real slick move on Maloney’s part is that she has now made the 90-day period a floor, instead of a limit. In short, the FBI could retain the records as long as they want. This makes her bill extremely dangerous, and it is an excellent tactical move on her part. She can paint this as a minor bill, and paint opposition to it as “those Second Amendment types being unreasonable.” But combine that change with “universal background checks” and a little bad faith, and all of a sudden, you now can create a national registry of firearms transactions with the stroke of an anti-Second Amendment president’s pen.

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators to politely urge that they oppose this bill. They also need to take the time and use this bill to explain to their fellow Americans why anti-Second Amendment extremists aren’t really proposing “reasonable” solutions.

Below The Radar: Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act

H/T AmmoLand.

Only an idiot like Rep.Shelia Jackson Lee(Delusional-TX) would introduce such a bill.

There is a link at the end of this story to contact Congress.

New York – -( is bad legislation intended to harm our rights. That sort of legislation, like, say, banning and buying back modern multi-purpose semi-automatic rifles, is easy to decide to oppose, and easy to call what it is. Other laws can be bad because they address a problem in a manner that infringes on our rights rather than use existing laws on the books. See various gun trafficking laws, like the Prevent Gun Trafficking Act, for cases in point.

Some, though, don’t really seem to do anything. One such bill is HR 49, the Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act, introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). Representative Jackson Lee has introduced a number of anti-Second Amendment bills, including a package of three bills in response to the Santa Fe High School shooting (HR 4080HR 4081, and HR 4082) that targeted our rights.

First of all, the title of the bill is a very clumsy piece of anti-Second Amendment propaganda.

By claiming some transfers are “accidental,” Representative Jackson Lee is trying to make it seem as if these transfers were not intended to happen. That completely misses the point on multiple levels. In a very real sense, no firearms transfer from a federally licensed dealer is accidental.

What the bill requires is no more than a report that lists the number of times when a NICS check goes beyond three business days and the transfer goes ahead. The entire goal is to try and scare Americans into infringing on Second Amendment rights.

As we discussed with the Firearms Due Process Protection Act, when it comes to denying a constitutional right, the government should be bearing the burden of proof. In the case of the National Instant Check System, part of the approach was to say that if a denial did not come within three business days, the transfer could go ahead. Now, this process needs improvements like those in the Firearms Due Process Protection Act.

If you remember our coverage of HR 4081, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act, you’d know that Representative Jackson Lee has proposed legislation that does the exact opposite of placing the burden of proof on the government. This is a good reason not to give this bill the benefit of the doubt.

Given that this bill is intended to create “data” for anti-Second Amendment propaganda, Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Senators and Representative and urge them to oppose HR 49.

Below The Radar: Unlawful Gun Buyer Alert Act

H/T AmmoLand.

There is a link at the end of this story to Congress.

U.S.A. –-( One thing to remember when legislation is introduced – it’s never just about what the stated goal is. You need to not only look at the text of the legislation but also who introduced it. Otherwise, it becomes very easy to walk into a trap that could cost us our rights.

One case in point is HR 3552, the Unlawful Gun Buyer Alert Act. This was introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-RI). Cicilline has introduced a number of anti-Second Amendment bills, including the Untraceable Firearms Act of 2019. Such a track record means that he should not get the benefit of the doubt, even when the stated goal of the legislation is innocuous – or even praiseworthy.

The Unlawful Gun Buyer Alert Act purports to require that law enforcement be informed when a prohibited person tries to acquire a firearm (or actually does). Now, this is a laudable goal. Those who try to buy firearms in violation of the law ought to be punished. According to the text of the legislation, the local and state law enforcement agencies are to be notified, along with the local field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sounds good, right? Get the guy trying to illegally buy the firearm and hit him with the appropriate sentence after conviction. Well, there’s just a couple of problems. First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are nowhere to be seen – and isn’t that the agency that’s supposed to be handling that sort of thing?

That’s a minor problem. Beyond that bit of bureaucratic stuff comes the big issue: Not all of the denials issued by the National Instant Check System are legit.

In fact, a significant number of them are erroneous, and there is no effective appeals process for those who are caught up in those denials.

Now, there is legislation, the Firearms Due Process Protection Act that has been covered here on Ammoland, that would fix those problems, which you’d think would be a good thing so as to prevent wild goose chases – or worse, wrongful convictions that could land people some serious time in federal prison.

But Cicilline’s legislation lacks those measures that provide a modicum of fairness for people wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights that have become the victims of a bureaucratic mix-up. The fact is, Cicilline’s poor track record on Second Amendment issues means his bill, as written, is a complete non-starter.

This is not to say that some notification when a prohibited person tries to buy a firearm isn’t warranted, but Cicilline’s bill is not the place to start, given the problems NICS has with erroneous denials. Therefore, Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose HR 3552 and to instead support the Firearms Due Process Protection Act.

Below The Radar: Secure Communities and Safe Schools Act

H/T AmmoLand.

It is time to let our Senate and House Members how we feel about this bill.

United States – -( One thing that has been clear over the years is that perhaps the worst damage the Second Amendment and those who defend it – in the sense of public relations – has been school shootings. We can literally trace massive, sweeping anti-Second Amendment legislation, often at the state level to Columbine, Sandy Hook, and other tragic incidents.

Often, they had high body counts. These counts fueled media coverage and were used by anti-Second Amendment extremists to fuel fear and hysteria among suburban women. As much as Second Amendment supporters want to believe Bloomberg’s billions are 100 percent astroturf, that is not quite the case. Everytown/Moms Demand Action does have support from some parents with real worries, and it means that his money is more amplification than it is true astroturf.

Now, there have been efforts to improve school security. One of those efforts has been to allow teachers to be armed to protect themselves and their students. However, despite massive demand (just Utah and Ohio show just how much), there are some who want to halt such efforts, or at least put barriers in place.

One of those is Representative Val Demings (D-FL), who introduced HR 2383, the Secure Communities, and Safe Schools Act. She doesn’t outright ban teachers from carrying but throws a different hurdle up: School districts will be prohibited from using money from various federal security grant programs to buy teachers firearms or accessories.

Now, if your goal is to halt – or at least mitigate – a school shooting, then this bill is counterproductive. Just look at the West Freeway Church of Christ to see why. That church shooting was stopped by armed intervention on-site in six seconds. Compare that to all the places where cops take minutes to arrive.

Now, we all know a teacher’s salary doesn’t go far. To buy a firearm, holster, ammo, and the range time to train properly is pretty expensive. So, using those grant funds to allow teachers to buy firearms would be a way to help make the schools safer. It works much like concealed carry – not all teachers that carry, but the fact a fraction do carry introduces uncertainty into any attacker’s plan.

Demings, as a former police chief, knows how long it can take cops to arrive. Yet despite knowing the truth, she seeks to leave schools helpless. Worse, this bill has already been reported to the full House of Representatives. Second Amendment supporters need to move fast to stop this bill in its tracks.

They need to contact their Senators and Representative, and politely urge them to oppose HR 2383.

Below The Radar: Firearm Due Process Protection Act

H/T AmmoLand.

To borrow a phrase from Earl Pitts, “Wake Up America!”


Millions of law-abiding citizens submit to background checks, as intimated by the president's comment to reporters. (Dave Workman)
Millions of law-abiding citizens submit to background checks, as intimated by the president’s comment to reporters. (Dave Workman)

U.S.A. –-( There is no denying that anti-Second Amendment extremists have wanted to keep law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Ideally, as Sarah Brady famously put it, they want a “needs-based” licensing scheme. There have been numerous bills introduced, like the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act, which would create such restrictive schemes.

Right now, what exists is the National Instant Check System. The system is not without flaws, and it certainly needs improvements.

One such improvement is proposed by Representative Tom Emmer (R-MN), HR 1817, known as the Firearm Due Process Protection Act. According to a release by Representative Emmer in 2016, when he introduced the legislation in a previous Congress, the legislation will do several things, all of which are benefits to law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights.

First, let’s lay it out what is being addressed: A NICS denial can be a big deal. It is a warning that a prohibited person is trying to buy a firearm. But there are numerous cases of erroneous denials, which often have needed to be cleared up. They can be cleared up, though.

“The primary reasons for successful appeals are mismatched fingerprints and inaccurate criminal history records, and currently the amount of erroneous denials is not public information,” the 2016 release said. But the Obama administration halted the appeals process.

This legislation requires a response to an appeal within 60 days. The bill also provides for people to sue in court to rectify erroneous information if the FBI fails to do so, and for the case to be heard in 30 days. Most importantly, in those proceedings, the text of the legislation states that the government “shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is ineligible to receive or possess a firearm.”

The bill also provides for an award of attorney’s fees should someone appealing prevail in court, and it requires the FBI to report on the disposition of appeals as well. These are all very important, especially when it comes to establishing and reinforcing some constitutional basics.

First, it places the burden of proof on the government to deny a constitutional right. This is in marked contrast to the “needs-based” licensing schemes that Sarah Brady once wanted, which forces people to prove they’d need a given firearm. Second, it also holds the government responsible for when its mistakes cause law-abiding citizens to be delayed or denied in exercising their rights.

The Firearm Due Process Protection Act doesn’t create a perfect scenario, but it represents a step forward. In addition, it also would expose anti-Second Amendment extremists as wanting to deny people the ability to own firearms. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge passage of HR 1817. In addition, they should also ask for other improvements, like overriding the licensing regimes and waiting periods in states where such schemes exist.

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, Local Public Health And Safety Protection Act

H/T AmmoLand.

We must remain alert at all times.

United States – -( Much attention gets focused on federal and state legislation. This is very understandable, as that legislation can come with some serious penalties. But local laws also matter, especially when people need to be in a certain locality for professional reasons. Often, these have been dealt with by preemption laws, something the National Rifle Association worked hard to get passed over the years.

But now, some want to change that. One of those is Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO), who introduced HR 3435, the Local Public Health And Safety Protection Act. Now, this bill doesn’t directly prohibit preemption laws. That would be a big stretch.

Clay instead takes an approach similar to that applied by Representative Jamie Raskin and Senator Chris Van Hollen with the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act: He bribes states to dispense with preemption laws via federal grants. In addition, he bribes localities to enact restrictions on Second Amendment rights. In essence, these payoffs are meant to make the lives of law-abiding gun owners harder. How much harder?

If you remember the bad old days before there were preemption laws, you’d recall that there would be a patchwork of rules and land mines for a person exercising their Second Amendment rights. In some states, a concealed carry permit would be invalid in some cities, often those with high crime rates (where the need for concealed carry would be greatest – then again, gun control lacks a lot of logic).

In other words, you didn’t just have to track state laws, you had to track the laws of every locality you might go to – or even pass through. The sheer scope of that task would discourage some to exercise their rights… which is the real intent behind those laws.

The goal of anti-Second Amendment extremists isn’t to have the police or some other entity go door-to-door taking people’s guns away. It’s to get people to just give up their rights – or to cease advocating for their preservation – on their own accord through a combination of hassles and social stigmatization.

Clay’s bill does the latter by putting Congress on record against state preemption laws, adding to the stigmatization of pro-Second Amendment efforts. That is why Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose HR 3435. We certainly don’t need our states and cities bribed with our own tax dollars to infringe on our rights.

About Harold HutchisonHarold 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: 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.