United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Sometimes, legislation intended to attack the Second Amendment doesn’t go after our rights directly or indirectly. Yet it can still be a threat, and it warrants strong opposition because the effects will be used in future attacks. This legislation, though, often will fly under the radar because of its indirect approach.
This is the case with HR 4177, the Gun Safety Board and Research Act of 2019, introduced by Representative Mark Desaulnier (D-CA). According to a release from his office, the legislation will create a so-called “Gun Safety Board.” This board would be responsible for doing research and for proposing what the release calls “evidence-based” solutions.
However, we should not be fooled. This Gun Safety Board is not out to look at the facts objectively. Just look at what Desaulnier has on his Congressional web page – a separate page that discusses what he calls “America’s Gun Problem.” The numbers there are a host of out-of-context claims and a fair bit of demonizing the National Rifle Association.
So, we can assume with a fair degree of certainty just from the background that this is not going to be a board with a mandate to take an objective look at the stats. We also can assume this because, according to the text of the legislation, this board is being placed under the Department of Health and Human Services. This is where the Centers for Disease Control is also placed.
Second Amendment supporters should take time to brush up on the history of CDC advocacy for gun control. Because that is what this board will be intended to carry out – using the veneer of science. In essence, Desaulnier’s plan is to treat our constitutional rights as a disease to be eradicated.
What is so diabolical is that this legislation is not a direct attack. Desaulnier and other anti-Second Amendment extremists are instead just asking for “research” into the issue. They will claim that they want experts to look into the issue. But which experts will they find? Ones like Arthur Kellerman or Katherine Kaufer Christoffel.
Kellerman’s 1993 study is still used these days to claim guns do not provide an effective means of self-defense. Of course, we all know (or should know) that Kellerman skewed the data by simply noting fatalities. But most people who use guns for self-defense don’t even have to fire a shot. Often, the sight of the potential victim being armed ended the attempt to commit a crime.
Second Amendment supporters should take the time to contact their Senators and Representative, and politely urge them to oppose this legislation. We don’t need to see taxpayer-funded anti-Second Amendment propaganda.
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, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.