Bill in Congress would require Americans take psych test, get liability insurance, register guns and more to own them
The following editorial is written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.
—
WASHINGTON, DC- Defund the police. Release criminals from jail. Open the borders to criminal gangs. This is Biden’s America. Now to add insult to injury, the Democratic-led House of Representatives wants to take away the ability of the American people to defend themselves. Or at the very least restrict it…severely.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is by far one of the most radical members of Congress. Given the makeup of the current House, that is saying something. However, as the saying goes, elections have consequences, and we are already seeing exactly how far left this current makeup is willing to go. For further proof, look no further than H.R. 127.
We already reported on H.R. 1, a far-left radical bill clearly designed to have Democrats win national elections in perpetuity. H.R. 1 would codify every stunt pulled by Democrats in the 2020 election such as ballot harvesting and mail-in voting, much of it in violation of Article I, Section II of the Constitution. H.R. 127 would put significant limitations on the 2nd Amendment.
The law, if passed and signed into law would, under §932 establish licensing of firearms and ammunition, as well as registration of firearms. This section would require the owner of a firearm to transmit to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under section (b)(1):
(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and
(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.
The above information would be required within three months of the effective date of the bill for firearms already owned by that date, and on the date an owner acquires a firearm for any weapons acquired after the effective date.
The law will direct the Attorney General to “establish and maintain a database of all firearms registered pursuant to this subsection.”
Here’s the kicker about the above section. Read this carefully:
“The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public [emphasis added], all Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces [emphasis added], and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau.”
So think about this for a minute. This law would publicize who owns guns, and where they store them. What a windfall for potential criminals…the ability to know who keeps guns in their homes (and by extension who does NOT) and where the guns are stored.
This is like putting a scarlet letter out there for where criminals can acquire guns. Or, where they don’t need to be worried about encountering an armed homeowner.
Secondly, why would the military need to know who has arms? For what purpose? The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in part to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
If there is anything we have seen with the current makeup of Congress and the current administration, it is that they do not seem to be shy about imposing tyrannical standards or rules upon the American people.
Indeed, since last March, with the onset of COVID-19, we have seen one tyrannical governor after another implement random, arbitrary, draconian executive orders. More recently, we have seen members of Congress ask for “reeducation camps” or “reprogramming” for supporters of President Trump.
Big tech companies have engaged in outright censorship of points of view which do not conform to a particular narrative. Where people have previously accused gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates of being “paranoid” about government overreach, recent events have done nothing to sway that opinion.
Section (c)(1) outlines requirements for a “licensing system.” It reads as follows:
(A) GENERAL LICENSE—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Attorney General shall issue a license to possess a firearm and ammunition if the individual—
(i) has attained 21 years of age;
(ii) after applying for the license—
(I) undergoes a criminal background check conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the check does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the individual would violate subsection (g) or (n) of Section 922 or State law;
(II) undergoes a psychological evaluation [emphasis added] conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm; and
(III) successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training, and
(iii) demonstrates that, on issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy issued under subsection (d) [emphasis added].
That last section, folks is the money shot.
This law would require that persons who wish to get a federal license to carry firearms would have to obtain liability insurance.
One can imagine that obtaining such insurance, if it was even offered, would be prohibitively expensive. Ah, but the government has that covered as well as you’ll see further on.
So in essence, what Democrats such as Jackson Lee are doing by such a proposal is to eliminate the ability of lower income Americans to afford to protect themselves. Since many lower income Americans tend to be people of color, this section in its face appears to be rather racist.
The other portion of this, a psychological evaluation we could almost agree to under ONE condition.
That all members of Congress, including psychos such as Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Cory Bush, and Hakeem Jeffries also had to agree to psychological evaluations. For that matter, Joe Biden should also have to submit to a cognitive abilities test.
Then it is something worth considering.
Considering, and then quickly rejecting, of course.
The same rules as above would apply to anyone who wanted to obtain a license for so-called “military-style” weapons, with some exceptions. Under psychological evaluation, there are additional requirements, including:
(C) as deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and
(D) as part of the psychological evaluation, the license psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.
So in other words, an ex-wife or ex-husband with an axe to grind could have their former spouse denied a license to own a “military-style” weapon. Sounds pretty fair.
These licenses of course have an expiration date, so anyone so licensed would have to renew them periodically, to the benefit of course of the government, who will get additional fees.
Remember we spoke of liability insurance? Well good old Uncle Sam has you covered there as well.
(d) FIREARM INSURANCE.—
(1). IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) [emphasis added] of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.
(2). FEE—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800. [emphasis added]
The proposed law would also require a valid license in order to possess ammunition. In addition, private sale or transfer of firearms or ammunition would be illegal unless the Attorney General was notified of the sale or gift. Likewise notification to the Attorney General would be required for the loan of a firearm to another person.
Please do not misunderstand what the Democrats are trying to do. National registration of guns serves one purpose and one purpose only…to know WHO has the guns.
The next “logical” step in the process is not if, but when Democrats decide to undergo a gun confiscation program, they know who has the “legal” guns.
Given the Democrats clear disdain for the Bill of Rights, does anyone think for a minute they would think twice about gutting the 2nd Amendment?
They have never been concerned about illegal guns. You need only look at the infamous “Fast and Furious” gun-running program undertaken by former Attorney General Eric Holder during the Obama presidency as proof. Anyone brain-dead enough to think laws such as this will make a dent in the criminal use of firearms needs to get one of the psychological examinations mentioned in the bill.
Democrats have been longing to implement something like this for years and now, with a feeble-minded person in the White House who is kowtowing to the hard left they feel empowered to do so.
Hopefully the conservatives in the Supreme Court will see this as the Constitution-busting piece of garbage that it is. Pass this on to everyone you know and make sure they are aware of what the radical anti-2nd Amendment left has in mind. They are coming for your guns…MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT.
—
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
The post Bill in Congress would require Americans take psych test, get liability insurance, register guns and more to own them appeared first on Law Enforcement Today.
This content was originally published here.
Responses