United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Often times, anti-Second Amendment extremists like to claim that laws need to be updated to reflect modern realities. They often make that argument when trying to justify bans on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms, and Second Amendment supporters are right to point out that the Second Amendment doesn’t become irrelevant due to technological advances (and the Supreme Court said so in Caetano v. Massachusetts).
Well, turnabout can be fair play. This same argument can be made when it comes to a lot of restrictions on firearms sales at the federal level. After all, the internet makes it very easy for people to look up information on firearms laws (the NRA has excellent summaries at the NRA-ILA website). The National Instant Check System means that it is easy for an FFL to find out if someone is a prohibited person under 18 USC 922.
So, really, with modern communications, why do we have sales restrictions that were passed years or decades before modern technology has rendered them unreasonably archaic. The good news is that there is legislation that can not only bring firearms sales into the 21st century, it will also be a step in the right direction when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. The bill is HR 2443, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, introduced by House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).
This legislation allows for a law-abiding citizen to buy a firearm as long as the purchase complies with the laws of both the state the transaction takes place in and the state that the purchaser resides in. In addition, it allows for military spouses to purchase firearms in the state their spouse is stationed in, their state of legal residence, and the state that they establish a temporary residence in (some military bases are near state borders). Dealers can also make face-to-face transfers with other dealers, saving shipping costs and reducing the risk of theft.
In a statement by his office, Scalise said, “The modernization and simplification of our federal firearm purchasing laws is long-overdue reform, and I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort.” As of this writing there are 56 co-sponsors of this legislation, and they deserve our thanks, along with Representative Scalise.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation and National Rifle Association have also supported this legislation.
“This is common-sense legislation that would allow law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms of their choosing while ensuring state and federal laws are enforced,” NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel said in a statement.
“In a sane world, it would be considered an uncontroversial update to laws that had not kept pace with technology and modern law enforcement and a way to protect the rights of those who in service to their country sacrifice the relatively stable and predictable residence situations most others enjoy,” the NRA said in its statement.
While HR 2443 is not perfect, it represents substantial improvements for the lot of law-abiding gun owners and FFLs. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to pass this legislation.
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.
I would have to read the entire bill in its FINAL form. I would be searching for any hidden legalese wording that is Anti-Second Amendment. ALSO, how about REMOVING the over 25,000 Second Amendment INFRINGEMENT, under the color of law, laws that are on the book?!?!?!?! How about REMOVING all of the antiquated laws that CONTRADICT the Second Amendment Rights of Legal Law Abiding American Citizens!!!!
@Laddyboy – Agreed, but… much as I would like freedom enforced from federal level down, there is the small issue of states’ rights. Do we really want federal government micromanaging state and local governments? Can we accept such compromise on state-rights?
To me the answer is yes – when federal involvement is limited to protecting individuals’ rights. They already enforce some civil rights, why not this one as well? Gun rights are civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, minority rights and basically a right for ALL of us.
This proposed law makes such common sense (to use a term antis like to use), that opposition to it could only come from legislators who oppose any kind of civilian gun ownership.
@Wass – Are you saying it’s doomed?
Shall not Infringe.
Get rid of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 NAZI Crime Control Act.
Cut all funding for BATFE.
PS. This is another bullshit law that can be amended and have riders added to it so that it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.
Nice article – Good Journalism! Keep up the good work!
We need to get Pres. Trump re-elected, and put the house back in republican hands, and give the senate a filibuster proof majority of republicans THEN we need to push hard to get a Constitutional Carry Nationwide bill passed. Enough of the tinkering around the edges of rules, regs, laws, permits, etc etc.
Don’t worry your feeble little mind too much. Will Flatt will be along shortly with another boring, bitter and abusive rant against Harold and his article. Along, no doubt, with the link to his stupid little petition to rid the universe of Harold and thus save mankind.
You’re such an ass, Will. You probably don’t know what this article is even about. You just saw HH on the byline and posted your shit comment. So much hate. So little tolerance. It must really suck to be you. Or Will Flatt.
Damn. So I’m going to guess you and Will WON’T be taking long hot showers together till the wee hours of the morning?
He and some others are so vociferous that it resembles the acid from the mouth of the Alien in that first movie. It melted through the ship. Sometimes it’s fun to just poke ’em a little to light the fire.
I disagree completely. ANY new law, or “…modernization and simplification of our federal firearms purchasing laws…”, is unconstitutional! I’m not surprised to see the NSSF in favor of this as they are consistent in their support of any anti-gun law so long as it doesn’t impact hunting or their corporate members’ profits, and of course the NRA is in support of more unconstitutional gun laws and are happy to compromise our rights away since that is their pattern, especially under LaPierre.
Compromise is failure and ANY regulation, amendment or restrictions on the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.
@JPM – Politics is the art of compromise. Any time you have two or more people, you have politics. My wife and I don’t always agree on everything, but through compromise we maintain a mutually beneficial relationship. Compromise itself is not inherently bad. When compromise means total surrender or violates morality, then it is bad. Gun control exists and we are unlikely to totally eliminate it. Proposed bill simply makes existing infringement less onerous. If your goal is violent revolution perhaps that’s a bad thing, but to mature adults things are not so black and white. While I would prefer… Read more »
If you are correct or in the right and you compromise, you lose. It’s a simple concept. ANY compromise of any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is wrong. It’s a simple concept. Are you stupid?
Two mass shootings today. About 140 Americans die from self inflicted gun shots, gun homicide, mass shootings and accidental shooting EVERY DAY. That’s not a well regulated militia. Gun safety laws are there to reduce gun violence and one way to do that is to find and prosecute the gun traffickers. A safe, responsible, patriotic gun owner understands that. Idiots generally don’t. Neither does anyone dependent on a gun and ammo industry job or investment. Which, is why America has the WORST per capita gun violence rate in the world.
Lost? I think you’re looking for the New York Times comment section…
American does not have the worst per capita gun violence rate in the world.
But that does not matter as posting misinformation is your narrative.
The second amendment is not about a militia or being part of one.
No law will ever stop a crime and suicide is a personal choice that if one method is removed they will try another.
Still not gun owners responsibility just like car owners are not responsible for drunk drivers.
@Link – Even if we had highest gun violence rate in the world, so what? When worrying about safety I’d look at all forms of violence, and honestly I’m more concerned with violence which might involv3 me or my family. Not personally concerned with inner city gangs or drug warfare – as with suicide it’s their choice. @ochwill includes defensive shootings – if someone is engaged in mass violence (with or without firearms) I count their preventive death as a good thing (whether or not they are shot). @ochwill also inflates death rate – highest I’ve previously heard anywhere is… Read more »
If liberty is too dangerous for you i suggest relocation to a safe space,the other side of your nearest us border! Dont let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya