Blog - Articles Tagged 'Firearms'

There’s been a lot of concern among gun owners that, under President Obama, Congress will pass a law this session that threatens their right to bear arms. “People are concerned about overreaching legislation from Washington,” one gun shop owner is quoted as saying in a New York Times article about surging gun sales just after the election. “They are educating themselves on the Internet,” the shop owner added.

Here’s a rundown of all the firearm-related legislation that has been introduced into Congress so far this session:

H.R. 17 – Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

H.R. 45 – Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

H.R. 197 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

H.R. 257 – Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007

To prevent children’s access to firearms.

H.R. 442 – Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act of 2009

To provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register certain firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and for other purposes.

H.R. 495 – Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009

To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.

H.R. 623

To provide for greater judicial discretion in sentencing for certain firearms offenses committed in exceptional circumstances.

As always, you can use your “My OpenCongress” account (login or register) to track these bills and get alerted to congressional actions and related news and blog coverage from around the internet. You can also use your account to track the Firearms issue area to be alerted to new gun legislation as it is introduced into Congress.

With the election of Barack Obama in November came anxiety among gun owners that the constitutional right to bear arms would be curtailed. As the rest of the economy slumped, gun and ammunition sales surged following the election. Now there is a specific piece of legislation in Congress that gun-rights activists have identified as the leading threat – the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1], would establish a federal gun licensing and registry program that would help the government track information on gun ownership and gun sales across the country. It would apply to handguns and all rifles with a “detachable ammunition feeding device.”

Currently, this kind of registry is specifically banned under U.S. Code, so the bill proposes to undo a provision enacted by the 99th Congress under President Reagan, which reads:

>No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

Along with the federal registry, the bill also proposes a federal licensing requirement for all gun owners. In order to get a license, a person would have to submit a photo, thumbprint, their address, a release of their mental health records, and more to the United States Attorney General. Current gun owners would have two years to acquire a license or forfeit their guns to the government.

There are several other controversial provisions in the legislation, including the ability for the Attorney General to, “during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.”

It would also add a new “child access prevention” provision to U.S. law making it “unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any 1 of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person” if that person knows that a child could potentially acquire the firearm. Notice the “interstate commerce” language here that places this in Congress’ jurisdiction under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Similar language can be found in the bill’s “”http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:52>findings" section.

A similar bill was introduced by Rep. Rush in the last session of Congress, but it was never considered by committee. Like last year’s version, the a href=“http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show”>Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 is currently sitting in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security with no legislative action planned.

For a bill that has received so little attention from Congress, it has received an incredible amount of attention from the public. In just the past 7 days, 35,769 people have viewed its page on OpenCongress. It’s also the second-most <a href=“http://www.opencongress.org/bill/most/blog>blogged about bill in Congress and second in the list of bills most often covered in the ”http://www.opencongress.org/bill/most/news>news. It’s gotten all this attention at the same time that the country’s focus on Congress has been firmly fixed on the $787 billion stimulus bill, nonetheless. One more thing – the bill’s standing among OpenCongress users as of this writing: 24 in favor – 1138 opposed.

There have been a few interesting votes in the Senate recently worth mentioning here. All on amendments to the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009.

Gun Rights

The first was on and amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn [R, OK] to allow visitors to national parks to carry guns according the laws of the state they are in. Coburn considers this not just a second amendment issue, but also about self defense. “National parks, while still generally safe for visitors, have seen an increase in crime recently,” wrote on his website.

The amendment was approved by the Senate by a 67-29 vote. All Republicans except Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN] voted in favor. Twenty-nine Democrats also voted in favor. One surprising vote, to me, was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY], who voted against the amendment despite, as a Rep., having a 100% voting record with the NRA, and an “A” lifetime rating.

Interest Rate Cap

The second was on an amendment from Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] that would have added some teeth to the bill by establishing a nationwide cap on credit card interest rates at 15 percent. It would allow credit card companies to charge higher rates if the Federal Reserve determines that the 15 percent cap threatens the “safety and soundness of individual lenders, as evidenced by adverse trends in liquidity, capital, earnings, and growth.”

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 33-60. One Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA], joined 31 Democrats and Sen. Sanders in support of the bill. Thirty-eight Republicans, 21 Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT] in opposing the amendment.

National Debt Disclosure

The Third vote was on a Sen. Judd Gregg [R, NH] “debt disclosure” amendment designed "to enhance public knowledge regarding the national debt by requiring the publication of the facts about the national debt on IRS instructions, Federal websites, and in new legislation. " It would require that any new spending from Congress is accompanied by information on the current debt level, the current level of debt per U.S. citizen and how much the new spending would increase the debt.

Additionally, the amendment would require the per individual taxpayer share of the Federal public debt would have to be included “in a prominent place” on all tax forms and all government websites to display a “national debt clock.”

The amendment failed by a single vote. The final vote tally was 59-35. All Republicans and 19 Democrats voted in favor. 33 Democrats and two Independent-Democrats voted against it.

Here’s a new piece of legislation that combines the most loathed issue on OpenCongress, gun control, with one of most notorious examples of mismanaged bureaucracy in recent years. The No Fly, No Buy Act, which was introduced into Congress by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4] on May 13, would take all the names that appears on the TSA’s No-Fly list and put them automatically into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database.

The no-fly list is designed to stop terrorists from boarding planes, but many people have been put on the list in error and people with the same name or a similar name to someone on the list – “false positives” – are held up at the gate and sometimes prevented from flying. This has included such unlikely terrorist suspects as Senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. John Lewis, and former Senator Ted Steven’s wife, Catherine Stevens (Wikipedia has a good rundown of notorious “false-positive” cases). The no-fly list is kept secret, so there is no way to know before going to the airport whether your name or a similar name has been put on it. Transferring the full no-fly list onto National Instant Criminal Background Check System would create similar problems for innocent people trying to buy guns. In fact, it could be worse.

When “false positives” try to board a plane, they are generally allowed to board after some additional questioning and showing airline officials or TSA officers additional identification. But, under this bill, when these people go to buy a gun, they won’t be able to be cleared until going through the TSA redress process, which generally requires mailing notarized copies of birth certificates and takes who knows how long to complete. Alternatively, they could submit an appeal National Instant Criminal Background Check System operations center. Either way, McCarthy’s legislation does not make any changes to the process for dealing with mistaken identities. Gun sellers would not be permitted to determine that a “positive” match is, in fact, false.

In announcing the introduction of her legislation, Rep. McCarthy said: “For far too long, the ‘terror gap’ has left a wide open loophole in our nation’s gun safety laws that could allow terrorist to acquire guns the same way any law abiding citizen can." A press release from her office explains:

Newly released FBI data documents 230 occasions in 2006 where persons on the violent gang and terrorist watch list were able to purchase guns. Furthermore, in January 2005, the GAO reported that in a five-month period—February 3, 2004 through June 30, 2004—NICS checks resulted in an estimated 650 terrorist-related record hits in their databases. Of these, 44 were found to be valid. However, 35 of these transactions were allowed to proceed because being identified as a known or suspected terrorist is not grounds to prohibit a person from being transferred a firearm under current law.

There is an alternative measure to deal with the issue already in Congress: the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. That bill would empower the Attorney General to determine that a person is “known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof,” and deny them the ability to buy guns.

So the question at this point for Congress, if they are to tackle the issue of suspected terrorists buying guns, comes down to these two proposals: empowering an unaccountable official to hand select people he suspects are terrorists, or automatically transferring a secret suspect list that is notoriously prone to error and misuse. Or is there a better option?

Over in the House Homeland Security Committee today Republicans used the relatively rare “resolution of inquiry” procedure to try to get documents from the Homeland Security Department related to their report issued last month, “Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

Under House rules (Rule XIII, Clause 7), committee leaders had 14 legislative days from the introduction of the resolution to bring it to a vote. They’re running a little ahead of schedule.

Congress Daily (sub-only) reports:

The extremism report, issued by the department’s office of intelligence and analysis, stated that radical groups could be fueled by discontent over the recession, possible gun-control legislation, divisions over immigration matters and the election of the first black president.

But the report came under heated public and congressional fire specifically because it singled out veterans returning from war as susceptible to extremism.

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists,” the report said. “The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.”

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has said the report was mistakenly sent to law enforcement agencies. She also has apologized to veterans groups for “any offense … caused by the report.”

The Republican resolution would require the department to produce all records dealing with the report, including those involving discussions about privacy issues, procedures for approving and disseminating the report and internal communications, including when Napolitano learned about it.

At the hearing, Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2] was more sympathetic than not to the Republicans’ cause. “When the DHS-produced assessment first surfaced in April, like many Americans, I had issues with its content,” Thompson said at the hearing. But he didn’t support the Republican resolution as is; nor did he direct committee Democrats to vote down the resolution, as is the normal practice with these kinds of things.

Instead, he proposed a substitute amendment demanding less specific information from DHS. Whereas the Republicans bill calls for the disclosure of a wide range of specific documents, Thompson’s amendment asks for a written explanation of how the report was produced and disseminated. Thompson’s amendment was approved by the committee by voice vote.

“The mere fact that this resolution of inquiry may go forward is almost unprecedented, I’m told, by people who’ve worked for decades on the Hill,” a Republican aide told reporters at Congress Daily. “The fact that the Democratic majority went from calling this the nuclear option and calling this a stunt to embracing it … is phenomenal.”

The resolution, with Thompson’s amendment substituted for the original text, will now go to the full House for a vote.

Btw, DHS also released a report on the threat of left-wing extremism at around the same time.

That guns-in-parks amendment that was attached to the credit card reform bill in the Senate isn’t a done deal. Huffington Post:

The House Rules Committee decided by voice vote Tuesday evening to split apart the credit card bill passed by the Senate Tuesday, slicing out an amendment added by Senate Republicans that would allow possession of firearms in National Parks.

That gun amendment will be voted on separately and then will be recombined with the bill before it goes to the White House. Both votes are scheduled for Wednesday.

By splitting the bill in two, Democrats can vote for the credit card reform portion without also voting for the gun language. The gun amendment is still likely to pass, backed by Republicans and swing-district Democrats. […]

Because the Senate took up the House bill, rather than originating its own, there will be no conference committee and the bill will go directly to the White House.

In the Senate, the amendment was passed overwhelmingly by a 67-29 vote with 27 Democrats voting in favor. Assuming all Republicans vote for the amendment in the House, it will take at least 38 Democrats to vote for it as well for the amendment to pass.

UPDATE: The gun amendment passed the House, 279-147. 105 Democrats joined 174 Republicans in voting in favor of the measure. I’ll update with full roll cal data shortly. Full roll call details here.

Last month, when Congress passed the credit card reform bill, they did so with an amendment in it to allow people to bring guns into national parks. The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn [R, OK] and approved by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 67-29 and agreed to by the House on a vote of 279-147. The Republican-sponsored move to add the gun-rights provision to the unrelated bill was so successful that they are now planning something similar for when the Senate takes up the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The bill, also known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, would expand US federal hate-crime laws to include bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Senate Republicans and pro-gun gay groups are looking to attach the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act to it, which would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons in states in which they are not residents. The rationale for adding it to the hate-crimes bill: concealed carry will help people defend against gay bashing. David Weigel at the Washington Independent reports:

“It makes sense for a group of people who would be protected by hate crime legislation to support something that would let them defend themselves before or after the crime,” said one Republican Senate aid familiar with the discussions. “It’s relevant, and we want to work together with gay groups to get the message out.”

While the aide described the discussions over a gun rights amendment to the hate crimes bill as “very fluid,” conservative and pro-gun rights gay groups outside of the Senate are ready to make a real push for it. GOProud, a new gay rights group that broke away from the Log Cabin Republicans in April, has talked with top staffers for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) about how to make the civil rights case for conceal and carry reciprocity.

“We support this because we think it’s advantageous to make it legal and relatively easy for gay people to arm themselves so they can protect themselves,” said Jimmy LaSilva, who became the executive director of GOProud after three years working on policy for the Log Cabin Republicans. “In the next few weeks we want to start highlighting some of those stories. There are people who have averted gay bashings because of their ability to use guns.”

If the concealed-carry amendment is given a vote, all indications are that it will pass easily. The Senate has already voted twice this year in favor of gun-rights amendments. Besides the amendment to the credit-card bill, they approved, 62-36, an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act to allow people to carry guns within the District. The fact that supporters of the concealed-carry amendment have a logical argument for why it should be added to the hate-crimes bill gives it an advantage above the other gun amendments. Plus, it already has strong support from Democratic co-sponsors in the House.

The question is what affect it would have on the underlying bill. The D.C. Voting Rights Act has stalled ever since Republicans successfully added their gun amendment to it. Democrats who supported the underlying bill won’t vote for it with the gun amendment attached. Supporters of the concealed-carry amendment, however, don’t think that will be the case with the hate-crime bill. Back to the article:

“Every Republican senator is on the record with a position on hate crimes legislation,” said GOProud’s LaSilvia. “If this were to be attached, a vote for the bill could be explained as a vote for concealed carry. Gosh — what would happen when the Family Research Council realized that their people were voting for the ‘gay bill.’ It would put a bunch of people in a really weird position. It would be fun to watch.”

One more point from me: Coming into this session of Congress and the new Obama administration there was a lot of paranoia about the Democrats enacting new, restrictive gun control laws. It was widely reported that gun sales soared following the election, and that people were stockpiling guns and ammunition. So far, though, Congress and Obama have done the opposite in regards to guns. The first gun-related law to be signed by Obama removed a restriction on carrying guns in national parks. The other gun vote – the one to allow guns in D.C. – was approved with support from 23 Democrats. And this concealed-carry bill seems like it has a real chance of becoming law via the hate-crimes bill.

The Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act (H.R. 45) has been one of the most-viewed bills on OpenCongress for months. The bill would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership, and OpenCongress users are overwhelmingly opposed.

I just noticed another bill that has been proposed in the House, a non-binding resolution introduced by two Democrats, the sole purpose of which seems to be a statement of opposition to the Blair Holt’s bill. It even mention’s the bill by number within it’s legislative text.

Does anyone know of any other bills in Congress that are about other bills in Congress?

H. Res. 351 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a Federal statute requiring firearm registration would unduly burden the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a Federal statute requiring firearm registration would unduly burden the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Whereas the soldiers of the Continental Army and other patriots who fought to secure the independence of the United States did not do so using registered firearms;

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is rooted in the principle of liberty, upon which the United States was founded;

Whereas the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, most recently in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008));

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms has a history of robust legal protection, reflecting a consensus that certain bans on firearms are unconstitutional;

Whereas firearm registration should be held to be an undue burden on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, consistent with the firm convictions to that effect of many of the people and the history of robust legal protection for the right; and

Whereas H.R. 45 of the 111th Congress, if enacted, would unduly burden the right of the people to keep and bear arms by requiring firearm registration: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that a Federal statute requiring firearm registration, such as is proposed by H.R. 45 of the 111th Congress, would—

(1) be contrary to the Constitution of the United States;

(2) unduly burden the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and

(3) stand in opposition to the founding principles of the United States