Willie R. Tubbs, FISM News
[elfsight_social_share_buttons id=”1″]
House Democrats are talking tough on gun control despite fierce opposition from Republicans in the lower chamber of Congress, but their effort to create a highly restrictive federal gun-control law is unlikely to produce anything more than noise.
A group of liberals have proposed a bill that if passed would result in a full ban on assault-style weapons and open gun manufacturers to legal liabilities when their weapons are used in shootings.
“As we have learned all too well in recent years, assault weapons—especially when combined with high-capacity magazines—are the weapon of choice for mass shootings,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the most outspoken proponents of the bill, tweeted. “Quite simply, there is no place for them on our streets.”
As we have learned all too well in recent years, assault weapons—especially when combined with high-capacity magazines—are the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Quite simply, there is no place for them on our streets.#AssaultWeaponsBanNOW pic.twitter.com/x8wisSm5qm
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) July 20, 2022
The matter has caused no small amount of uproar in Congress but beyond being an annoyance for conservatives and a fantasy for liberals, the effort is largely a matter of political grandstanding.
HR 1808 passed the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, but not even the bill’s most avid supporters think it will pass in the Senate, where the now-well-known 50-50 split means Republicans can filibuster the law out of existence (barring a sudden change of heart from 10 Senators on the right). The bill might not even make it to the Senate.
Democrats from conservative and moderate areas fear that pushing too hard on gun control, so soon after barely passing a bipartisan gun law reform, is a needless gamble with midterm voting approaching. According to Politico, Texas Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar and Maine Democrat Rep. Jared Golden will vote against the bill when it comes before the full house.
Politico also identified six other Democrats who might also vote against the bill, but the numbers are likely in favor of Democrats sending the bill to the Senate, where it will die.
Proof of how little faith Democrats have in their bill becoming law can be found in the fact that it both bans and legalizes a particular firearm.
“The Democrats’ ambiguous gun control bill bans the Ruger Mini-14 on page 8 and unbans the Ruger Mini-14 on page 26,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, tweeted. “Is this gun legal or not, Judiciary Democrats?”
The Democrats’ ambiguous gun control bill bans the Ruger Mini-14 on page 8 and unbans the Ruger Mini-14 on page 26. Is this gun legal or not, Judiciary Democrats? pic.twitter.com/eDkt2baI4h
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 21, 2022
The Judiciary Committee’s meeting proved an interesting study in political theater as Democrats moved forward with a bill that is almost certainly unconstitutional and without even mastering the topic at hand.
Massie pointed out on Twitter that Democrats hoping to ban bump stocks were not entirely certain what the term meant. Specifically, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) misidentified an arm brace meant to help disabled persons safely use a firearm as a bump stock.
“The Democrats are so zealous in their rush to ban everything related to guns and every gun that exists that I’m afraid Mr. Cicilline has … his gun features mixed up,” Massie said during the hearing. “He just described the arm brace, which is used by people who have a handicap to help fire a pistol, he just described it as a bump stock. It is neither a stock nor a bump stock, and I think it’s important that if you’re going to ban these things that you actually understand what you’re banning.”
Massie added the brace in question is not meant to increase the power or rate of fire of the pistol.
Must watch from @RepThomasMassie and @RepFischbach. https://t.co/pas9urBIBu
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 21, 2022
North Carolina Republican Congressman Dan Bishop attacked the Democrats’ pet project for being unconstitutional. Democrats, led by Cicilline, said the proposed bill complied with the constitution and Supreme Court edicts.
“What you suggest, that this order can possibly comply with what the Supreme Court has held in now three separate cases, is absolutely absurd,” Bishop told Cicilline. “You defy the Supreme Court of the United States in the same way the Democrats mounted massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education …The Democrats of the 1960s are the Democrats of the 2020s.”