HR 127 A Bill Designed to Express Hostility Toward Legal Gun Owners

NRA-ILA Money God We Trust
HR 127 would effectively end American’s right to keep and bear arms. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- All gun control bills share the same basic goal: a world in which fewer people own firearms. Some bills simply ban certain types of firearms or ammunition outright. Others place obstacles in the path of owning firearms or ammunition to make them more difficult and expensive to obtain, thereby shrinking the market for them. The fundamental flaw of these approaches is that they treat all law-abiding firearm owners as would-be criminals, when the reality is that most firearm-related assaults and homicides are committed by people who completely disregard the law, including laws against taking human life.

H.R. 127 combines both failed approaches. It bans common types of ammunition and original equipment magazines for most self-defense firearms. And, it makes all firearms more difficult to obtain and possess through a punitive licensing and registration scheme. In its details, however, H.R. 127 is so outrageous, persecutory, and unworkable that its main function is simply to display the hostility of its author and supporters toward firearms, those who own them, and those who want to own them.

  • H.R. 127 would ban common types of ammunition, including every shotgun shell larger than .410.
    • The bill states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
    • Violations of this ban would result in the imposition of a fine of at least $50,000 and imprisonment of at least 10 years, mandatory penalties not seen in many violent or infamous federal crimes, including torturing someone to death outside the U.S. or committing treason during wartime.
    • Hunting whitetail deer would be legally impossible in at least 10 U.S. states if these restrictions went into effect.
    • The bill would also make it impossible for Americans to follow President Biden’s advice to keep a double-barreled, 12 gauge shotgun for self-defense, rather than an AR-15.
    • Innumerable numbers of shotgun shells currently possessed by law-abiding people for lawful purposes would suddenly become contraband.
    • H.R. 127 would force Americans to relinquish hundreds of millions of firearm magazines with no compensation.
    • The bill states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device”, and defines such devices to include those “that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” excluding certain integral .22 rimfire magazines.
    • Industry production figures show that there are hundreds of millions of 11+ round magazines.
    • As with its ban on shotgun shells, H.R.127’s magazine ban would apply retroactively, affecting items already owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, with no compensation for owners forced to relinquish property that was lawful when obtained
    • H.R. 127 would require the federal government to register some 400 million guns in the span of only 3 months.
    • The bill states that registration information would have to be provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, “in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section.
    • But BATFE would also have to create the registration system during those 3 months.
    • Because the U.S. (intentionally) does not already have a national firearms registry, it would be impossible for the government to fairly and effectively enforce this system with respect to existing gun owners.
    • The firearm registry database would have to be made available to “all members of the public,” as well as “all branches of the United States Armed Forces,” among others.
    • This would facilitate private discrimination against gun owners, including in such things as employment and access to essential services such as banking, insurance, or housing. It also seems to presuppose that the military, which is prohibited by law from engaging in domestic law enforcement, has some role in policing civilian firearm ownership.
  • Ironically, criminals who possess firearms illegally would self-exempt themselves from the registration requirement, and under U.S. Supreme Court case law, could not be required to disclose their illegal firearm possession through registration.
    • H.R. 127 would retroactively criminalize firearm ownership by young adults.
    • Currently, there is no federal prohibition on adults aged 18 or older possessing otherwise lawful firearms.
    • The bill, however, would require a license to possess any firearm, and licenses would only be available to those aged 21 or older.
    • Millions of young adults, including those in the military, would become ineligible to possess firearms for their own lawful purposes under this legislation, including any firearms they already owned
    • H.R. 127 would discourage voluntary mental health treatment, including for combat veterans or victims of violent trauma, by permanently prohibiting the issuance of a license to anyone who “has been hospitalized … with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including … addiction to a controlled substance … or alcohol) … .
    • Anyone who had been hospitalized with a “brain disease” would also be ineligible for a license, including those suffering from brain cancer, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s disease.
  • H.R. 127 would effectively price lawful firearm ownership out of reach for many of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.
    • It would require the holder of a firearm license to pay a tax (masquerading as government-issued “insurance”) of $800 per year.
    • License applicants (and even other members of their household, as directed) would also have to undergo a psychological evaluation at their own expense.
  • H.R. 127 has a long way to go before becoming law.
    • The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing, and it currently has zero cosponsors.
    • While it is not presently moving, it does show how far gun control advocates would like to go in attacking the right to keep and bear arms.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JayWPB
JayWPB
17 days ago

A member of the Armed Forces cannot comply with an unconstitutional order, and I will not comply with an unconstitutional law that is intended to destroy this country. I took the oath to defend the Constitution. I fully intend for the USA to exist for my children and grandchildren.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
17 days ago
Reply to  JayWPB

JayWPB, If a law is passed to ban the possession of semiautomatic rifles, and the law is challenged and goes to the supreme court (as it exists today), and the court rules the law does not violate the Constitution, there appears to be a very high percentage of LEOs who would follow orders to enforce the law. The justification they use is the law has been determined to be constitutional and therefore the order to enforce the law is legal. Very few LEOs have indicated there is any point at which they believe a large percentage of LEOs will refuse… Read more »

191145
191145
17 days ago

If the house and senate want to (and believe me they do) can fast track this, get it passed and signed into law, then pack the SCOTUS and have a constitutional rubber stamp for it to be constitutional all by the midterm dominion election of 2022 . Get ready folks, tyranny has begun, and the retribution and vengeance are following . :-[

swmft
swmft
17 days ago

it is strange it was not thrown out by the legal committee it violates the unlawful taking provision ,would think that they would at least pay lip service to the constitution

191145
191145
17 days ago
Reply to  swmft

Not only that, but you can’t make legal items illegal under color of law . But, the democrats don’t give A-Flying-FK about the constitution . They are prepairing for some serious S^^t . Do you think the military will leave DC and take the barbed wire and barricades with them in March ? No ! They are making DC a fortress to protect them from the proud boys, oath keepers, white supremacist Trump supporters to the tune of 75+ million people . They know, that WE know they fked the American people, and “they” will be the first to “red… Read more »

Montana454Casull
Montana454Casull
17 days ago

This bill comes from a women who is completely clueless about firearms . Her past statements should eliminate her from introducing anything pertaining to firearms . Shiela Jackson Lee has a brain weighing less than a grain of powder and her AR 14 caliber is zero .

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
17 days ago

Montana – she ‘represents’ one of the most gerrymandered districts in the entire Republic. IIRC she not too long ago claimed than an evil black rifle weighs more than 10 packing boxes full of books.
I’m sure that you noticed that there is absolutely NOTHING in her proposal that addresses CRIMINALS – all of the rants directly infringe Law Abiding Citizens and their rights (not privileges) to keep and bear arms.
She needs to be reminded once again that we ain’t the problem which she claims to be trying to solve.

nrringlee
nrringlee
17 days ago

It is this kind of legislation that makes dear old Jim Crow come back to life. Identify a vilified class, conspire to usurp their Constitutional rights and then call yourself a good person for trying to address some nebulous windmill problem. None of the prohibitions will impact crime. What will impact crime is focusing on criminals and criminal behavior. The answer is simple. Fill our prisons with violent offenders instead of the mentally ill and addicted.

dave399
dave399
17 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Absolutely. “Fill our prisons with violent offenders…” is the best solution and it is not and never has happened. The purpose of all these gun control laws is to disarm the American citizen in order to better control us. Forty three years in law enforcement and I have seen very few criminals do any time for gun law violations.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
17 days ago
Reply to  dave399

In Chicago, when violent criminals are arrested (which happens in a low percentage of the crimes), the first charges that are thrown out are firearm violations:

  • Felon in possession of a firearm
  • Firearm theft
  • Possession of a stolen firearm
  • Straw purchase of a firearm
  • Being in the firearm business without an FFL
  • Sale of a handgun to an out of state person without using FFLs for transfer

Meanwhile, for those who are not violent criminals:
https://bearingarms.com/ba-staff/2016/11/25/kansas-mans-homemade-suppressors-clash-federal-law-n28134

RetUSAF
RetUSAF
17 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Chicago is the perfect example why gun laws never work to prevent crime. Illinois passed a FOID (Firearms Owned Identification) act over 50 years ago. You need a FOID card before you can touch, possess, own, buy a firearm or ammunition. You can’t loan or sell a firearm to anyone without a FOID card. To get a FOID card you have to apply, pay fee and wait for the Illinois State Police to do a background check, right now that is sometimes taking up to a year, even though the FOID law says it will take under 30 days. Does… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by RetUSAF
JSNMGC
JSNMGC
17 days ago
Reply to  RetUSAF

It’s almost as if gun control laws have nothing to do with crime prevention.

pigpen51
pigpen51
17 days ago
Reply to  dave399

They don’t want violent criminals in their private prisons, run for profit. There is less profit if they have to contend with a bunch of tough gang members, fighting all the time. Then they would have to hire actual “prison guards” instead of people who can blow a whistle, and file paperwork everyday. Take the profit out of the prisons, and guess what happens? Yep, the number of people sentences to prison will drop like a turd from a giraffe. Prison for first time offenders who were caught with over 20 grams of weed ? BS. I was an athlete… Read more »

Quatermain
Quatermain
18 days ago

The best thing that could happen is it passes and is signed into law by fraud Biden. At that point we have all the legal basis we need to remove all traitors in the illegitimate government that have anything to do with the passage of this bill, I am tired of the slow boil frog pot. Bring it on.

Miserable Wretch
Miserable Wretch
18 days ago

Wrote my congressman about this. Might not do much, but at least I’m showing my disapproval to them.

nrringlee
nrringlee
17 days ago

I have publicly stated time and again that I will not comply. Period.

Thinker1
Thinker1
18 days ago

Ex Post Facto… prohibited by the Constitution.