Below The Radar: HR 6225

Below the Radar: The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act of 2019
Below The Radar: HR 6225

Chicago/United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Loyal Ammoland readers rightly look forward to what they expect will be a favorable ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen (the extent remains to be seen). However, they should not think that anti-Second Amendment extremists will give up. Far from it, if legislation introduced earlier this month by Representative Robin Kelly (D-IL) is any indication. This bill is one of the types of legislative attacks that NYSRPA v. Bruen, for all the good it will do, can’t stop.

HR 6225 is titled as a bill to “modernize the business of selling firearms.” Well, when it comes from an anti-Second Amendment extremist like Representative Kelly and is co-sponsored by other anti-Second Amendment extremists, it’s clear that a more accurate descript would be calling this a bill to “drown gun stores in red ink and red tape.” Don’t take my word for it, look at the press release her office put out.

Now, nobody denies that there probably is a need to address modern technology vis-à-vis the Second Amendment, and there is plenty of room for real reforms (not the snake oil anti-Secod Amendment extremists are selling). With NICS and computers, there is no need for a multi-week licensing process to own firearms, not can a similarly lengthy permit-to-purchase scheme stand. And we can also largely dispense with restrictions on what can and cannot be purchased based on crossing state lines.

But Kelly’s not doing that sort of modernization. As noted in the press release, there are a host of new restrictions imposed on firearms dealers. Much of the justification is crime in Chicago. Now, you may be familiar with the crap Kim Foxx has pulled. Take, for instance, that “mutual combat” gunfight from a couple of months ago.

Foxx’s bullshit aside, this is exactly the kind of case a local official should be referring to the US Attorney’s office to look into using 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924. Members of gangs in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia (among others) are ripe for prosecution under those statutes.

Put it this way, someone who uses a fake ID in West Virginia to buy a single Glock pistol to arm a gang member with felonies on his rap sheet can be put away for up to 20 years on just that single Glock alone. That gang member can get up to 10 years just for possessing the gun. That goes without considering the many enhancements in 18 USC 924.

Contrary to what you may hear from some self-appointed Second Amendment commissars, not using these statutes in these cases does us little good. Given what Representative Kelly wants to inflict on your local gun dealer, who in all likelihood does take steps to keep their inventory secure, and who helps you and others exercise their Second Amendment rights, using those provisions is an easy way to head off her legislation at the pass.

The fact is legislation like HR 6225 will be a threat. The best way to stop it is to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists like Robin Kelly via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels. Needless to say, Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose 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.Harold Hutchison

1 5 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. Strangelove

Marxists like Kelly and Foxx won’t stop until we are disarmed and their shock troops, the gangs, are ruling the streets. I’m a truck driver, and if I get caught with a gun in Chicago, I won’t be let go like the “mutual combat” gang bangers, it’ll be straight to a felony pod at 26th and California.

UncleT

Just when I think you might be coming around Harold you post this crap. You seem to think criminal abide by the laws. They don’t. You also seem to think our Bill Of Rights are negotiable because of technology? They’re not! Technology and weapons evolve, our individual rights do not. Besides, 2A is not for personal protection or for individuals to impel rebellion but for each state to retain its own militia, a well-regulated one, and its residents to adhere to the state’s directives to ensure the state remains secure & free. With new Technology or not.

Country Boy

“Besides, 2A is not for personal protection…” and how the hell did you arrive at that (erroneous) conclusion? If one cannot protect his own self, how the hell can one protect his state?

Knute Knute

Besides the militia goes well back to before there were States to be a “United” States. If the militia has to be tied to a state as Big Uncle wants us to believe, then how did the militia manage to exist and whip the Redcoats’ a$$ at Lexington/Concord in 1775?? That was well before even the Declaration of Indpendence, for the historically challenged like UncleT.

UncleT

Our rights do predate the Constitution but the militia was still in the colonies and recognized by them. After 1776 Militia was not for personal protection or for individuals to impel rebellion but for each state to retain its own militia, a well-regulated one, and its residents to adhere to the state’s directives to ensure the state/ colony remains secure & free. Congress has the constitutional power & duty to regulate[ ]#2A by “Arming” (AI §8 C16) THE PEOPLE #2A—not “disarming”or “restricting”—which is “infringe[ment]”#2Aestablishing a constitutional disability, or absence of power. A direct limitation on Congress itself. Defending the militia is defending… Read more »

UncleT

We need to incorporate the #2A Militia requirement which will eliminate gun control laws. Too many #2A “advocates” are unaware of this because they dismiss the Militia as “UN-necessary” #2A 

Grinning Dragon

This is wholly incorrect. The prefatory of the 2nd Amendment; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is unconnected to the right itself; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The prefatory merely states the main positive attribute of a citizen militia. In 1792 Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1792 and 1795, which defined the requirements of eligibility, pay, supplementing armaments and the role congress and president would have in calling forth the militia. Then in 1903 the Dick Act would repeal the Militia Acts of… Read more »

Wild Bill

That is a pretty good recitation of the legal background, succinct, and to the point. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Firearm purchase!

UncleT

Terms in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights employed in 1788 and 1791 mean today precisely what they meant then. That the Constitution “speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers” applies to the specifically legal meaning its words and phrases had in that day: “The scope and effect of * * * many * * * provisions of the Constitution are best ascertained by bearing in mind what the law was before.” “We are bound to interpret the… Read more »

Grinning Dragon

The individual right in regards to the 2nd Amendment and the positive right to form militias was never a theory. This was understood at the time of the drafting and the subsequent ratification of the 3rd draft of the the 2nd Amendment. It wouldn’t be until the 1930’s when the theory of militia and the right to bear arms became intertwined and through a terribly written judgement in the Miller v. US is when this theory took off as lower courts latched on it, which became the new collective rights theory. Fast forward to 2008 in which Scalia mostly corrected… Read more »

Wild Bill

Like hell we don’t deny it! The founders were very much into new technology of all kinds (e.g. Ben Franklin, a founder and Rights supporter, was very much into electricity, mechanics, and weight lifting.) The technology of firearms was very much on the mind of the founders.
The problem is politicians that think they are as smart as the founders, smarter than the population, and no longer work for their constituents.
Harold, as hard as this is for me to write … have a Merry Christmas.

Happy Everafter

Half of a politician’s life is spent proving that they support the opinion of the folks who voted for them, i.e. for socialist/communists issuing incessant anti-gun press releases.
The other half is spent kissing the almighty Soros’ butt.
“…shall not be infringed.” You remember, the Oath and all the silly stuff they swore to uphold!

Grinning Dragon

[quote]Now, nobody denies that there probably is a need to address modern technology vis-à-vis the Second Amendment, and there is plenty of room for real reforms (not the snake oil anti-Second Amendment extremists are selling).[/quote] There isn’t any need to address modern tech, it’s already been addressed by the clear wording of the 2nd Amendment and as to “real reforms” if you are inferring the complete elimination/repeal of all anti 2nd Amendment laws and regs sure that is a reform I can get behind, but seeing as I’ve read quite a few of your postings, your content with giving the… Read more »

TexDad

You have a complete understanding of this writer.

TexDad

Re: commissars

That’s your term for people who reject your Fudd mentality. You’ve tried so hard to coin it, and it’s not working.

We should reject your way of thinking though, Harold. The no compromise approach has gained us ground, for a change. But you can’t see that.

Please go away. <- politely urging

loveaduck

Seems this site is willing to allow all opinions to be expressed. 1A, how horrible!

TexDad

Never said anything about kicking him off. I hope at some point Harold sees how useless and unwanted his nonsense advice is and knocks it off.

Wild Bill

I thought that Harold was just playing Devil’s advocate, or was just using reverse psycology. MC and a Happy New Rifle.

TexDad

If by modernizing you mean one party hands over payment and one party hands over the firearm, with no asking the government permission for what government is forbidden to deny, then I’m with you.

I don’t think I’m with you though.

Finnky

Harold supports incremental reform. While many might think it’s not enough, I suspect most of us could get behind modernization that recognizes technology. (1) An FFL anywhere in the country can access NICS check on anyone from any state. They can also check state laws to confirm legality of a firearm in any state or the union. WTF are they not permitted to sell to residents of other states? (2) NICS should live up to its name and be instant. (3) You’ve been run through NICS and FFL has applied the most sophisticated technology available to evaluate your intent (intuition… Read more »

Grinning Dragon

I fully understand where Harold is coming from, he’s a status quo type fella and is happy to improve upon anti 2nd Amendment such as NICS. I have the same type of folks in my family, while they are a tiny minority, they’re fudds just as Harold is plain and simple.
I’ve been against the whole NICS from day one and continue to be against it, the mere idea that a person must prove their worth instead of the default standard that govt must prove the counter is an abomination.

Wild Bill

How about we “modernize” by dropping the entire licensing scheme, so that we could purchase firearms on Amazon?
MC, and a Happy New UPS home delivery.

Last edited 1 month ago by Wild Bill
swmft

gun broker express ,guns ammo ,targets , on line to your door

Wild Bill

That is the ticket! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Firearms e-commerce system!

musicman44mag

How about changing the law to where I can buy a gun in another state right there where I am at rather than having it transferred to a gun dealer in my state so I can do the nics check there and get the gun. What if my gun breaks and I am out of state and can’t get a gunsmith within MY time frame to fix it or I cannot get parts for it in a store or mailed to me. I bet you can get a nics check anywhere in the USA so why the rule that limits… Read more »

Wild Bill

Yes, that too! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Firearms e-commerce system, God bless us, every one … well almost every one.

Oldman

It would be kinda hard to convince Amazon to carry firearms or ammo, but I like the idea. How about Ace Hardware? They ship, too…..MC

Wild Bill

I bought my first revolver from a hardware store. The only paperwork was a receipt. Yeah, let’s get back to that kind of freedom. Restore the Republic and a Merry Christmas!

Oldman

Yeah…Got my first .22 when I was eleven. My dad accompanied me to the local hardware store, where we bought the gun and a hundred rds. of long rifle for $43.00…. Foundout later tha tno one knew there was a gun going off if I shot shorts. I LMAO now thinking of how good it was back then…. MC

Last edited 1 month ago by Oldman
Wild Bill

Yes sir, that is freedom that current and future generations will never know. Oh and prices that future generations will never know! MC, brother.

Arizona

This bill doesn’t even have any text yet! The press release only mentions several bad and unconstitutional bills that were introduced and died before even making it out of or to committee. This is fear mongering, plain and simple click bait article.

Wild Bill

Unless the bill repeals the GCA and NFA, I’m agin it! MC and a Happy New Thirty shooter!

uncle dudley

These idiot congress people won’t put the blame where it belongs, with the criminals who commit the crimes and lock their butts up, instead they shift the blame to FFL holders and try to make them the bad guy’s.
Most crimes involving firearms were not bought in a store by the criminal using it.