Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Politics

Democrats Have Big Gun Control Dreams. Here Is Their First Move.

Colt 1911. Image: Creative Commons.

Last week, eight Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives joined nearly every Democrat in supporting legislation that was aimed at strengthening background checks in all firearms sales and transfers. The “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021” passed in a vote of 227 to 203 with only a single Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, casting a vote against it.

If it passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Biden, it would result in new background check requirements for all gun transfers conducted by private parties.

As it currently stands, unlicensed or “private sellers” are not required to conduct a background check for transfers on firearms, and this includes sales made at gun shows – which has resulted in opponents of such transactions calling this the “gun show loophole,” and additionally have argued this is how many criminals obtain their firearms. All licensed dealers, including those who sell at gun shows, are in fact required to conduct a background check.

The majority of Republican lawmakers pushed back against the measure and argued that it would result in an infringement on American citizens’ constitutional rights. They have further warned that it could hinder abuse victims from obtaining a firearm for protection. Proponents said they believed the measure would curb gun violence and keep firearms from being obtained by criminals.

“I believe that in order to curb evildoers from having access to firearms, we have to be willing to make some changes for the greater good,” explained Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of the eight GOP representatives to support the bill.

“This legislation by itself will not stop violence,” added Kinszinger. “It will help, but the core of our issues cannot be changed by laws. We cannot detect or deter evil by legislating. Accepting the reality that this evil exists is part of it, as well as holding those who commit these crimes accountable.”

Kinzinger, who in the past has said he is a supporter of the Second Amendment, argued that the bill will add precautions to reduce gun violence, while it won’t stop law-abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm.

“In the face of the evil that threatens the fabric of what this nation stands for, we must unite and stand against such hatred,” Kinzinger noted. “It’s why I took this vote today, making a choice to work towards a better tomorrow for our children and the future of this country.”

The other GOP House members included Rep. Vern Buchanan (Fla.), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Rep. Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.), Rep. Carlos Gimenez (Fla.), Rep. Maria Salazar (Fla.), Rep. Chris Smith (N.J.) and Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.).

Fitzpatrick, Smith and Upton were co-sponsors of the legislation.

Additionally, Fitzpatrick and Smith both supported the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which was introduced by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.). It would close the so-called “Charleston loophole,” which provides that if the current national background check system is not immediately able to determine if a buyer is able to legally obtain a firearm, and the FBI does not conduct an investigation within three days, the seller is allowed to proceed with a sale. The bill extends the initial background check review period to ten days. While the two Republicans supported it, two Democrats were opposed.

Both bills could still have an uphill fight in the Senate, even as the Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has vowed to put the background check legislation on the floor despite opposition. When the GOP controlled the upper chamber, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked the legislation.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has even predicted that some Republicans could support the bill, but it is likely some more conservative Democrats wouldn’t support more restrictions on firearms and would join any Republican opposition.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Peter Suciu
Written By

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. Avatar

    Ian F

    March 15, 2021 at 4:56 pm

    CRIMINALS DON’T DO BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!

    These morons can’t even understand that….

    I’m so sick of politicians telling be that I can’t be trusted to defend myself – all while doing their best to eliminate the police force!!

  2. Avatar

    Ronald Vantine

    March 15, 2021 at 5:02 pm

    Seems like it is losing support of the liberals with the number of firearms sold due to riots and pandemic.

  3. Avatar

    David Frank

    March 15, 2021 at 5:17 pm

    Excuse me but THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE! They are private citizens selling their own property. All vendors at gun shows MUST DO A BACKGROUND CHECK.

  4. Avatar

    jeff

    March 15, 2021 at 8:38 pm

    This law will not affect criminals, only honest citizens. All voting for this law know this and that it is only for control of honest citizens. It is time we got some representatives that are looking out for the American people.

  5. Avatar

    Curly_Bill

    March 15, 2021 at 10:48 pm

    “I believe that in order to curb evildoers from having access to firearms…”
    Therefore we mush punish law abiding citizens for no apparent reason.

  6. Avatar

    Slumdog

    March 15, 2021 at 11:36 pm

    “Free Men and Women don’t need Permission.” Democrats want to turn millions into felons with their Gun registration/Confiscation plan. So are they personally planning to take our guns; I think not. Any LEO that obeys them is breaking their Oath of Office. Oath keepers like me will “Uphold, Protect and Defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!”

  7. Avatar

    Flag-Man

    March 16, 2021 at 12:29 am

    I thought the Senate
    was 50-50

  8. Avatar

    Apathy

    March 16, 2021 at 9:03 am

    With 300 million guns and a trillion rounds of ammunition, if law abiding citizens were the problem you would be aware of it.

  9. Avatar

    Joseph Edelen

    March 16, 2021 at 10:26 am

    Learn to make IEDs! Did you know that explosive components can be easily made from chicken manure, hot water and rubbing alcohol (no federal plastic tracing chips)..remember knowledge is NOT illegal. Battery acid is also a good resource for making explosives.

    Joseph Edelen
    Vancouver, WA
    Joseph.Edelen@daimler.com

  10. Avatar

    Paul Dempster

    March 16, 2021 at 10:44 am

    What part of “Shall not be Infringed” don’t they understand?!?

  11. Avatar

    SteveRodgers

    March 16, 2021 at 10:58 am

    I don’t give a fuck what the “Xiden regime” wants. If you need razor-wire, and armed guards to maintain power you don’t have an administration; you have a REGIME. Just like this mask nonsense, as a scientist I can tell you “the science” says there is no proof sars-cov 2 exists, however there IS a mountain of proof the flu has been called something else for nefarious reasons. 60 million positive swabs and no one has 12 molecules to isolate? C’mon look at flu numbers for the last 30 years. It’s the smoking gun.

  12. Avatar

    Boomboy007

    March 16, 2021 at 11:08 am

    This has nothing to do with background checks, this establishes a de facto gun registry. Once the registry exists, the jackboots really WILL come for the guns. The first few will find guns and “child porn”, because no one will defend him or her. After a few of those, the gun confiscation will be “normalized”.

  13. Avatar

    Francisco Machado

    March 16, 2021 at 1:00 pm

    “This legislation by itself will not stop violence,” added Kinszinger. “It will help…” Infringing upon the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves against those who do not obey laws will “help” stop violence – or will it benefit the on-the-job safety of the criminal class? As a balance of force issue, any law that infringes upon a citizen’s right to buy a gun favors those who do not obey laws and are consequently not affected by them. You cannot stop criminals but you can compromise the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves against them. What, after all, is the ration of violent criminals to the common man? One deadly felon to over ten million average citizens? And how does a law disarm people who do not obey laws? I note dining/mask wearing mandates didn’t stop noted politicians from ignoring them. That illustrates how easily laws can be defied.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement