United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- While a lot of attention is rightfully being paid to the threat posed by HR 127, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act that we have covered earlier this month and in the last Congress, there are other bills targeting our Second Amendment rights. As of this writing, a search for the term “firearm” under legislation in the 117th Congress reveals 29 entries.
Not all of them are massive assaults on our rights. Some are relatively minor, or they seem neutral but the lead sponsor of the legislation means that they require significant scrutiny. One such bill is HR 121, the Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2021. The lead sponsor is Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, who also introduced HR 127.
According to the text of the legislation, the bill seeks to add 200 agents and investigators to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Now, that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is just how these agents will be used. 200 ATF agents, in the right places, could make a big difference in the violent crimes we see in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
The problem is that Representative Jackson-Lee doesn’t intend for some common-sense ideas for how to use those agents, like following up on arrests of violent criminals in possession of firearms and using the provisions of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 to get some lengthy prison terms for them.
Let’s just look at a few from 18 USC 922:
- 18 USC 922(a)(6) makes it a federal crime to make any false statement or to present a false ID to a FFL. Penalty: 10 years in prison.
- 18 USC 922(d) makes it a federal crime to provide a felon a firearm. Penalty: 10 years in prison.
- 18 USC 922(g) makes it a federal crime for a felon to possess a firearm. Penalty: 10 years in prison.
Then there are these provisions from 18 USC 924:
- 18 USC 924(b) provides for a 10-year sentence to ship, transport, or receive a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce if they know or have reason to believe a felony would be committed in that transaction.
- 18 USC 942(h) provides for a 10-year sentence for anyone who provides a firearm knowing or having reason to believe it will be used in a crime of violence or drug-related crime.
In the findings, she mentions how many are killed, but doesn’t discuss the problem of violent criminals. Instead, the bill claims, “Millions of guns are sold every year in “no questions asked,” transactions and experts estimate that 40 percent of guns now sold in the United States are sold without a background check of the purchaser.”
In other words, these agents will be sent, often on wild goose chases, harassing FFLs who, in all likelihood, followed the law and did nothing wrong. The actual violators of the law won’t be touched – and there are significant provisions that could work to address those who run guns to violent criminals. Those provisions have been around for a long time and could work.
So, in the scheme of things, HR 121 is not a bill Second Amendment supporters should back. Instead, they should contact their Representatives and Senators and politely urge their opposition to this bill, and to instead support legislation like the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which actually addresses the misuse of firearms and does not infringe on our rights. Second Amendment supporters should also support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.
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.
Harold, What do you and the NRA think about the “Terror Intelligence Improvement Act?” Do you think the NRA should rescind Rubio’s A+ rating in a highly publicized manner? Rather than sending money to the NRA, as you encourage, what do you think about people not sending the NRA any money – not because of the allegations of financial mismanagement, but because of the NRA’s long history of supporting gun control and candidates who work to implement more gun control? Can you do an article about the demographics of the portion of the NRA membership who currently contribute money? If… Read more »
JSNMGC, I’m 73 and a Life Benefactor member of the NRA. I haven’t given them a dime in the past two years. I will not donate to them until they fire Wayne LaPierre and do a comprehensive restructuring giving members some say so, not just their hand picked elite. There are many other gun rights organizations, many do much more that the NRA now days. I now support the GOA with monthly donation because I like what they are doing.
Makes sense, but I don’t think Wayne is the only problem. Their governance structure and their strategy are both deeply flawed. I shoot with people from 20 to 75 years old. None of the under 30 people belong to the NRA and most of the people who currently give to the NRA are over 65. A huge percentage of younger people never signed up because they did research on the history of the NRA regarding their governance structure, strategy of compromise, the lack of transparency, and their reluctance to analyze and publish data regarding the lies that support gun control… Read more »
I sent dues one time to GOA and I start getting email sent to wanting donations. Sounds just like NRA did all the time. If gun advocates would do what is expecting of them, I don’t think they need to ask for money all the time. Makes me think it’s all they want and end up the way of NRA after me send them life membership. It’s like being bitten once makes a person Leary.
That ancient “40%” canard was debunked so long ago, even Obama stopped using it early in his reign.
from NSSF: Universal Background Checks and the 40% Myth
from NRA-ILA: ‘Forty percent of guns don’t go through background checks’ Lie Debunked
oh yeah, and from John Lott: The `40 Percent’ Myth
“… 40% of guns… are sold without a background check” ??
What two-watt-bulb-for-a-brain Leftist cuckoo-clock came up with THAT statistic?? Don’t know exactly who it was, but I know (with absolute certainty) precisely where he got it… pulled it out of his anal orifice.
HAH HAH HAH YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! I can’t stop laughing.
Yes, family transfers via estates and gifts, CCW holders like here in Arizona, private party sales governed by state laws. None of these present any kind of threat to public safety. Containers of AK’s coming in to the Port of Stockton from the PRC, with the help of a now encarcerated California State Senator, now that is a threat to public safety. Sponsored by the Bay Area democrat cabal and the PRC. Focus on that threat.
Posted comment (on hold)
Not the job of the ATF. In fact, the ATF is unconstitutional and shouldn’t exist itself. So, you want an unconstitutional unlawful agency unlawfully in states and cities enforcing laws? Things that totalitarian statists say.
“200 ATF agents, in the right places, could make a big difference in the violent crimes we see in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.”
Will, Harold will not learn… or alter his behavior.
But you are quite right. The Leftists, Socialists, Progressives (or whatever the idiots call themselves this week) can go straight to hell. And on the way down, they need to commit at least one act of auto-eroticism!
WTF? Harold? WHY is “MediumPurple912’s BS comment” on here and “JSNMGC’s” is awaiting moderation for upwards of an hour? ARE YOUR LIGHTS ON HAROLD?
I don’t know how the process works for putting comments on hold, but I suspect Harold has nothing to do with it. Some comments seem to go on hold automatically if a youtube link is posted, but my comment did not include a youtube link. Some comments seem to go on hold automatically if more than one link is embedded, but my comment did not include any links. Some comments seem to go on hold automatically if they are long, but my comment was not particularly long. My comment was not a personal attack. Dave spoke about “mechanical” style of… Read more »
Guys,
It’s taken care of, I went and made supper.
Thanks
And who gave you permission to eat???
Why doesn’t this comment section show emojis? It would keep some people from thinking my last post was serious.
the people who would take heed to your mojos aren’t the problem. IF they can see the cartoon and respond rationally, they have at least a handful of functioning synapses. The others.. well, likely not so much.
Personally I ignore the silly things preferring to use words.
Rather than emojis, you can expand beyond the standard internet acronyms of LOL, etc., by writing <smile>, <big grin>, <confused look>, <high five>, <wink wink nudge nudge>, etc. Or, to be more explicit, you can write <insert smileyface here>, and so forth. (Note that italics make your intent clear.) This method gives you a wider choice of ideas, and more precise communication, than picking from a fixed menu of acronyms or emojis. (I assume Ammoland wouldn’t complain about the angle brackets.)
Sam in NH,
Unless the filters have fits with it, like they do with the at sign sometime, brackets shouldn’t be an issue. I use %-) and others like that routinely w/o problems.
DonP,
It turns out that it’s a natural right, just not one of the enumerated ones. %-)
Being a “natural” right – enumerated or not – doesn’t slow down the Leftists attacks on any/all “rights”!
JUS,
Nope. The problem, to be serious for a moment, goes to the heart of the matter. Conservatives believe, generally, in a creator. They believe that natural rights come from the Creator, or failing that, from nature. Leftists tend to deny the concept of natural rights and believe that rights are granted by society. Once you relegate rights to the level of granted privileges, it becomes easy to bestow or take back those privileges.
OK, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Ah, come on stay your on soapbox. I like to hear more and it may be a possibility it would cause people to get off their seat of do nothing.
OV,
I’m lucky. We’ve both been in places where it’s a fond hope.
I had a number of comments “held” for approval – although they were all eventually approved and posted. The explanation I received was that “maybe” my writing style closely mirrored “mechanical” writing… still not exactly sure what that entails, but the “holds” seem to be fewer now.
I saw that. I’m not bitching – just ruling things out and explaining my post.
I’m not entitled to post here anyhow. 🙂
Thanks AmmoLand for the forum.
More worthless BATFE agents? Great. A number of years back, over 100 BATFE nitwits were reassigned to El Paso, Texas in order to “deal” with the gun problems along the border (prior to Fast & Furious). A hundred worthless and bored BATFE agents is a dangerous thing. They wound up harassing FFL dealers and citizens by inquiring about gun purchases and sales in the area. Many citizens were asked about guns they purchased through local FFL dealers, which is none of their business, and the vast majority of those citizens told the BATFE agents to “piss up a rope, and… Read more »
Which illustrates a point I have been making for years now. Never talk with federal law enforcement. Ever. From BLM Rangers to the FIB, never volunteer anything. I say this because I have seen the dirty underbelly of federal agencies via the so-called War on Drugs. They are now on steroids via the War on Terror (anti)Patriot Act. So if they ask directions to the powder room on your local gun club, your response should be “Get a Warrant” and turn and walk away. Anything other than that and you are asking for entrapment.
Harold, you need to find something else to do. Your posts on here is out of order. If you think any of Sheila Jackson-Lee and her cohorts are not infringements, you are wrong.