While I’m a supporter of 2A rights (I vote actively, donate to charities that fight for 2A, and actively donate to representatives that support 2A)… I also understand the need for responsible gun ownership. Now more than ever, it’s blatantly obvious that folks; the world over, are more entitled than ever, and thinking they are owed “rights” they make up – just because they don’t like something. Having a CCW as well as actively training in responsible firearms usage every week with my wife at local ranges and training facilities – I deeply understand both the fear that some have of these weapons (I was shot as a child in my country during the cold war. – Romania in the 80s – by a soldier)… but same time… I also deeply understand the roots of the American Bill of Rights, and the needs of it’s citizens to protect themselves. I know there are various interpretations – but honestly, i’ll leave that up to better minds than mine. I wasn’t born with the American Constitution handed to be on a silver spoon … I had to survive a revolution and gunfire …. as a child… to EARN the right to call myself an American.
The second amendment is just as integral to being an American; as is the right to Free Speech and Freedom of Religion…..
I understand that Bill HR7910 doesn’t destroy our rights. I understand it’s intended as a compromise to facilitate a safer society and to support a bipartisan system that can (hopefully) result in safer and responsible gun ownership in the entirety of this nation.
That being said – here’s my views on HR7910 – and I do hope you hear what one of your constituents feels on the matter.
TLDR – i’m actually ok with most of it. Except the magazine ban (Title VI ).
First the flat out “NO” – Title VI – Restriction on magazine capacity (ban “high” capacity magazines)
– this would not have the intended effect. during the 1994-2004 ban on similar magazines – the result was a strong push for MORE concealed firearms that were more compact and reliable. This also resulted in higher calibers getting more popular. This is very likely to repeat, and will certainly lead to more headaches on all parties involved, along with citizens.
– also note that this stifles innovation and … well.. the nature of design. The reason magazines can store 15-20 rounds in a pistol the size of a 1911, is due to the invention of “double stacking”. It’s been around for 100 years, and is a natural fit for reaching the functionality the firearm was designed for.
– Banning an accessory of a firearm – especially one that’s deemed “common use”…. will not reap tax revenue benefits for the Federal Bureau…but WILL cause constitutional infringements and potentially be attacked by litigation immediately.
– Also to the point of “lives saved”… a reload of a magazine takes 1-2 seconds. It’s not going to have the desired effect. Magazines are polymer, light, and easily transported. not to mention that any “restrictions” in design, can easily be circumvented – illegally – but the parties that commit atrocities … aren’t likely to care at that point. Basically, this won’t result in less bullets being shot in these tragedies.
In fact – I’d propose instead of an outright ban – consider mandating a serialization or a background check on magazines (though I’d suggest not charging $25 for someone to buy a $20 magazine). Still – while I’d say NO to this… honestly, if it appeases folks, and there’s fears of what magazines that are 30+ rounds can do – consider a background check. Or do something where they are registered (after all it’s not a firearm)…. I will say I adamantly oppose this path – but… I’m saying it’s an avenue that could be compromised on, and appease both sides.
Now onto the ones I support :
- Title I – Raise the Age for Semi Auto rifles from 18-21
- sure. I actually believe civilians can’t make adult decisions at 18 anyway. They shouldn’t be going off to war, and they shouldn’t be voting on our futures, nor should they be incurring life-altering debt.
- so… yeah. I don’t think they should be buying firearms at that age. I’d say some exceptions might be considered for those that have no family, and are forced to survive on their own – they can file a petition and whatnot, to get a firearm for survival (hunting/self defense).. if they prove they live alone and need one for survival… though the question of why are they not in some form of aid comes up… but I expect all this to be rare.
- Title II – require background checks for all sales – except gifts to family
- sure. the reason the “gun show loophole” concept exists – is because private sale of firearms in person are legal. Well, some gun shows in America… while rare … have up to 30% of their firearms sold by private citizens… not operating with a business license (a whole lot of other problems right there)
- do keep in mind, that most of these are selling muskets and revolvers from 1870 for $20,000. Unlikely to end up in criminal hands. But… still… I get it. It can, and has, happened.
- You could still get this as a sustainable model by having an FFL on site at gun shows (revenue for Fed agencies! plus keeps everyone safer).
- Title III – all firearms have serial numbers
- While this is insanely easy to circumvent, it’s honestly not difficult nor has much impact on law abiding citizens.
- it’s expected feds will provide a clear and concise plan for HOW to serialize firearms. (states already have this for some “p80 builds”, yet go to an FFL and they have no idea how to do it. this is the government’s fault…. fix it)
- Title IV – Safe Storage and incentives
- again, not a bad idea. kind of already exists in most states… and providing tax funding to help folks get a safe is excellent (as I’m sure the vendors that will be providing these safes become quite happy to sell to feds at inflated prices)
- also this will help folks moving into new places talk more openly to landlords. many landlords right now flat out deny anyone that has firearms or a safe … having the fed backing that it’s THE preferred way to store firearms and constitutional rights – will go far to decriminalize the stigma with these landlords (I get it, it’s their right to deny… just saying, it’ll help to loosen things up)
- Title V – bump stock loophole
- honestly I thought this was already a law. sure. bump stocks are horrible for accurate fire, and essentially result in “spray and pray”… which has zero use other than at a range having some fun. in a self defense situation… bullets would go uncontrolled, and hurt innocent civilians.
- this does also seem to allow them to be NFA items. which can still be procured via stamps and registrations. fine. actually surprised this loosens things up with them, but if anyone’s willing to go through all that paperwork… they def going to be responsible.
- Title VI – you saw above. NO. lots of reasons.
- Title VII – NIC report – keep and review denied NICS.
- sure. this is directly addressing the notion of. “enforce the laws you have in place” and do a better job. I’m sure this will result in more tax money spent … but if it results in safer and better enforcement of laws that protect society – I’m all for it.
- Plus this doesn’t seem to do anything to infringe on rights… assuming no privacy infringements haha.
Well that’s it. thanks for reading. Hopefully this helps. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions on these from a moderate political citizen that knows quite a bit about how the firearms industry works.
as a reference – this is the bill you can track-
HR 7910 bill