Democrats: Let’s Make Gun Ownership Extra Hard

Democrats: Let’s Make Gun Ownership Extra Hard

Democrats: Let’s Make Gun Ownership Extra Hard

“Never let a crisis go to waste,” said Democrats Cory Booker, Bob Menendez, and Richard Blumenthal.

In the wake of the Buffalo shooting, these three brain trusts have decided to introduce a new bill to make owning or purchasing a gun even more complex, time consuming, and cost-prohibitive. Behold their grand and likely unconstitutional idea – “The Federal Firearm Licensing Act.”

“This bill moves us in the right direction and is based on a simple concept – if you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to buy and possess a gun,”continued Sen. Booker. “Firearm licensing laws have broad public support and have been shown to reduce gun violence in states that have enacted them, including in my home state of New Jersey. This is the moment to enact ambitious legislation – as a nation, we must rise to it, or we are fated to witness the deadly scenes of this past weekend and years past over again.”

“The United States stands alone in our failure to protect our citizens from gun violence. While many states, including New Jersey, have commonsense gun laws, the need for federal licensing standards has long been clear,” said Sen. Menendez. “The Federal Firearms Licensing Act would put in place a certification process that includes firearm safety training and a thorough criminal background and identity check requiring the licensee be 21 years of age. We have a moral obligation to prevent these senseless massacres in our schools, supermarkets, places of worship and shopping malls that are tearing communities and families apart. It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will once-and-for-all recognize the urgency of action and join us in passing this legislation before more lives are senselessly lost to gun violence.”

“This legislation will save lives and protect communities across the United States from the devastating impact of gun violence,” said Sen. Blumenthal. “As shown by the success in Connecticut, simple, common sense standards like licensing laws requiring the completion of a background check and firearm safety certification work. I’m proud to join Senators Booker and Menendez in this effort to address our nation’s gun violence epidemic.”

Well, no one can say that they didn’t see some kind of grandiose attempt by the Democrats coming to take away rights from law-abiding citizens because the laws that they put in place already don’t work when no one enforces them. Stephen Gutowski, who is an excellent source for honest and analytical gun reporting, wrote a piece detailing how the Buffalo shooter could have been stopped or delayed with the laws that New York state already has – but didn’t use.

In the case of the alleged Buffalo shooter, there were several parties who could have requested a red flag order based on his past behavior. The alleged shooter expressed a general desire in a school assignment to kill himself and others in June 2021. As a result, he was taken by police for a psychological evaluation and spent a day and a half in a mental hospital, according to NPR.”

However, he was released and no further action was taken.”

If either the police, school administrators, or his parents had filed for an ERPO, the shooter likely would have been prohibited from buying the gun he used in his attack. The shooter’s clear willingness to break dozens of laws, including by illegally modifying his gun, implies he may have been willing to buy a gun illegally even if subject to an ERPO. But making his acquisition of a gun more difficult very well could have prevented the attack.”

So, what do Democrats Booker, Menendez, and Blumenthal want to do? They want to create a whole new FFL standard, one that every single gun owner in the country would have to adhere to. The text of the bill can be read here, but the bullet points are as follows:
– the bill would require a firearm safety course, with both in-person hands-on training and a written test
– it would require a federal background check
– it would require fingerprints, proof of identity, and the description of the firearm (make, model, serial number, and identity of seller) that the gun owner wishes to purchase
– it would require that the person trying to get this FFL is at least 21 years old
– it allows for ONE firearm purchase within 30 days of getting the FFL, and that’s it
– it would require that this new FFL in order to own a gun be renewed every five years
And then the bill goes into the entire process of applying for the Federal Firearms License, which apparently leaves it completely in the hands of the Attorney General – or, more specifically, the Department of Justice bureaucracy to approve or reject each and every application for this FFL. What could possibly go wrong???

Can we count the ways of how messed up this attempt to curb legal gun ownership is? First, let’s start with the fact that the Democrats would love to have any kind of federal gun registry, and this is a pretty blatant attempt to establish one. Second, this bill appears to want to trump all state laws on gun ownership, especially considering there would be a written test involved. The federal government has no intent to create a written test for each state’s gun laws – they just want THEIR laws. Third, how much information mining is this bill aiming to get from people – Fingerprints? Proof of identity (what RACISTS these Democrats are, right)? – just because they want to exercise their constitutional right to own a firearm.

And apparently these East Coast Democrats just missed the decision that the Ninth Circuit – yes, THAT Ninth Circuit – just issued about California’s attempt to restrict firearm ownership to those 21 and older. Surprise! The Ninth Circuit just issued a 2-1 ruling that it isn’t constitutional.

Now, should California appeal this decision (the case is Jones v. Bonta), it could get all the way up to the Supreme Court. And given that the Court is about to rule on another gun case out of New York regarding the denial of concealed carry permits, California is probably hedging their bets a little to wait and see the ruling in that case first.

Don’t forget that under this new law, every single gun owner would be required to renew their license every five years. Do you think that this license will be affordable, or do you think Booker, Menendez, and Blumenthal intend for this to be either so cost-prohibitive as to keep people from even owning a firearm, or do you think they see this as a cash cow for the federal government?

And no, the law says nothing about the guns that you already own – you know, the ones that were lost in that tragic boating accident. The law only provides for the purchase of a gun within 30 days of getting this license (I guess you pick out the gun, and then apply for the FFL to buy it? How would this even work?), and it explicitly limits the purchase of firearms to ONE every FIVE YEARS. So, you just gave the government your fingerprints, proof of identity, took a class, took a test, had the background check run, and NOW the federal government will deign to allow you to purchase ONE firearm. At this point, you should be able to buy a machine gun, right?

Kudos to Senator Menendez, who, in his above statement, pins the responsibility for passing this load of garbage on to Republicans. Um, I’m betting you couldn’t even convince Joe Manchin to even READ this bill, much less support it. Last I checked, the Democrats have the edge in the Senate, but everyone knows Joe Manchin is calling the shots. This bill is a non-starter, but boy, don’t the Democrats feel good about themselves and completely self-righteous for proposing it!

Featured image via Bret_Hondow on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license

Written by

10 Comments
  • Scott says:

    “This legislation will save lives and protect communities across the United States from the devastating impact of gun violence,”… The only thing that would do that is Democrat control… Name a single city that’s been run by the demonrats for more than 5 years that isn’t a complete shithole.. I dare ya!

    “Can we count the ways of how messed up this attempt to curb legal gun ownership is?”.. Only need to name one.. the CONSTITUTION… this proposal would violate rights protected (not granted) by multiple amendments, to include at least, the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th.

    “Do you think that this license will be affordable, or do you think Booker, Menendez, and Blumenthal intend for this to be either so cost-prohibitive as to keep people from even owning a firearm,” That’s exactly what the left did when they added suppressors to the National Firearms Act ( which was modeled after Hitlers gun control act of 1938… tell me again who the nazi’s are??” The put the price for a tax “stamp” at $200 which at the time was months worth of salary for the average person, making it a defacto ban on them. This is proposal has exactly the same intentions.
    Scratch a democrat, and you’ll find a power hungry totalitarian EVERY time.

  • CDC says:

    Springfield Armory XD sub-compact 40 s&w and the pictured Hornady Critical Defense 165 Grain is a great combination for self defense.

  • John C. says:

    Seeing as how criminals are, by definition, people who make a living breaking laws, how exactly do they think this will affect any criminals? Seeing as how a lot of AGs are increasingly lenient on criminals, but would be certain to fall like a ton of bricks on people who are guilty only of paper violations?

    • Bruce says:

      “Criminals”?

      Ayn Rand nailed it in “Atlas Shrugged”, many years ago:

      “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

  • Lloyd says:

    Grandstanding….That’s what this is. Nothing proposed here will do anything to deter a crazed individual intent on hurting others. Ahhh…..But it sounds good….good enough to produce votes, they hope!

  • NTSOG says:

    We in Australia have very tight gun laws since the massacre of 35 people in 1996. Most of the conditions proposed in the article above are in force, if not even more. We legal shooters live with the regulations which the socialist left/Green inner city people consider not strict enough. However there is yet another gang war occurring in New South Wales and gang members are shooting each other almost on a daily basis. They are part of a large system of organised criminals, not just street thugs. Clearly such people are not registered and legal gun owners; they have the means to import guns illegally and do so. Some even make their own. The anti-gun lobby wants everyone to believe that many guns are stolen from legal owners such as I, but research demonstrates that this is not so. [Anyway most of the guns owned legally by shooters such as I are long guns, bolt-operated rifles or shotguns, not handguns which is what criminals want. We legal shooters may not have any form of auto-loading firearm unless we can show a professional purpose such as pest extermination, i.e. shooting feral animals such as pigs or goats. We cannot even own pump-action shot guns.]

    As John C states: “… criminals are, by definition, people who make a living breaking laws, how exactly do they think this will affect any criminals?”

    As has been stated the Laws exist already to prevent certain people having access to firearms, but weak-willed politicians and members of the legal system seem always to take the easy way out by targeting law-abiding people while promoting themselves as supporting Law and Order. As for professional criminals nothing will stop them doing what is part of their profession: breaking the Law.

  • Cameron says:

    I have a proposal that if added to the above regulation will have my sup, port.

    Upon the passage of the law, all Congressmen and Senators who voted for it are legally liable for all cases of gun violence within the United States for the duration of their term plus ten years.

    Someone in California shoots up a school? Corey Booker does prison time for it. You see; if you want to claim that your shiny new law is going to stop a problem, you’re on the hook when it fails.

  • 370H55V says:

    “bullet points”, snork-snork.

  • Dietrich says:

    Has anyone considered the MASSIVE increase in the government workforce to implement this bill? No doubt Congress would push it’s operation down to the States, without funding. I can picture a minimum 6-month backlog for testing, etc. Check the numbers below.
    “There were a total of more than 39.3 million federal and state background checks in 2020, according to the FBI. From that, the firm estimates that almost 23 million guns were sold last year, compared to just 13.9 million in 2019.”

  • […] because they know they would never get elected again. Instead, they wish to make gun ownership as hard and expensive as possible. And they also want to Do Something™ because They […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead