Bracing yourself for unconstitutional rules now that the Biden administration has been installed? Well the wait has passed, and we introduce to you, H.R. 127 (which might also be called, “the gun control law from where you’d send anyone who tried to hurt your family”).
The inflammatory and altogether unconstitutional proposed piece of legislation, brought to us by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), includes the mandates that the following “required” information be submitted to a forthcoming Firearm Registration System:
“(1) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau—
“(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and
“(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.
“(2) DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made—
“(A) in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or
“(B) in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm.
Fun, right? But wait, there’s more. Not only will you need to declare the guns, you’ll need to get permission to keep them. The licensing system requirements are as follows:
“(A) GENERAL LICENSE.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to possess a firearm and ammunition if the individual—
“(i) has attained 21 years of age;
“(ii) after applying for the license—
“(I) undergoes a criminal background check conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the check does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the individual would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law;
“(II) undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm; and
“(III) successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training; and
“(iii) demonstrates that, on issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy issued under subsection (d).
There is also a special license for antique guns on display and another for “military-style” weapons. Next, comes an especially frustrating portion, as it will likely be completely subjective, depending on the evaluator: Psychological Evaluation.
“…the evaluation is conducted in compliance with such standards as shall be established by the Attorney General” and will be “conducted by a licensed psychologist approved by the Attorney General,” and, to make matters worse, “as part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.”
It seems worth noting/reminding at this point that the position of Attorney General is an appointed one, not an elected one. Therefore, the entire system can be boiled down to one man, a man that around half the nation believes could have been elected illegally: Joseph R. Biden (or whoever is pulling his strings on any given day).
Then there’s the matter of insurance, and following that, there’s a whole lotta mambo jumbo about specifying which weapons are classified as what and who would be squeezed and to what degree, should they not adhere to these mandates.
Law Enforcement Today writer and retired Chief of Police Pat Droney voiced his view on the bill
“Defund the police. Release criminals from jail. Open the borders to criminal gangs. This is Biden’s America. Now to add insult to injury, the Democratic-led House of Representatives wants to take away the ability of the American people to defend themselves. Or at the very least restrict it…severely,” Droney said.
“… elections have consequences, and we are already seeing exactly how far left this current makeup is willing to go. For further proof, look no further than H.R. 127.
The former police chief went on to explain another danger, pointing out that “This law would publicize who owns guns, and where they store them. What a windfall for potential criminals…the ability to know who keeps guns in their homes (and by extension who does NOT) and where the guns are stored.
“This is like putting a scarlet letter out there for where criminals can acquire guns. Or, where they don’t need to be worried about encountering an armed homeowner.”
Later in his assessment of the new bill, Droney expounded on what he thought would be coming shortly down the road if a bill like this were to be passed:
“The next ‘logical’ step in the process is not if, but when Democrats decide to undergo a gun confiscation program, they know who has the ‘legal’ guns,” Droney said in his article.
“Hopefully the conservatives in the Supreme Court will see this as the Constitution-busting piece of garbage that it is.
“They are coming for your guns…MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT.”
