Pistol Stabilizing Braces

johnrlott crimeresearch.org [mailto:johnrlott@crimeresearch.org]

The Biden administration’s newly released regulations regarding “pistol-stabilizing braces” will instantly turn tens of thousands of law-abiding Americans into felons and create a national rifle registry. Worse, the Biden administration and the media exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits these braces produce for the disabled.

Stabilizing braces for pistols were originally designed to allow wounded and disabled veterans who may have lost the use of part of their hand to hold handguns. They are essentially a strap attached to the gun. Disabled individuals are often viewed as easy targets by criminals, and stabilizers make it easier to defend themselves. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) originally approved pistol braces during the Obama administration.

Putting aside that the ATF isn’t Congress and can’t make up new laws to redefine what a rifle is, their logic is baffling. 

Take two otherwise identical guns, one with a pistol brace and one that never had a pistol brace: Even if the pistol brace is removed from the gun to which it was attached, it is still banned.                 Meanwhile, the gun that never had the brace attached could have one added, just as easily as the gun that previously had the pistol brace could have it reattached – but only the gun that once had a pistol brace attached to it is banned.

Of course, how the ATF is supposed to know whether you used to have the pistol brace attached to the gun is a mystery. Nor is it obvious why functionally identical foreign-made pistols should be treated differently than domestically manufactured ones.

This started after President Biden cited a crime in 2021 in Colorado – where a shooter used a pistol stabilizing brace when attacking shoppers in a grocery store – to call for classifying such brace-affixed pistols as machine guns. Ahmed Al Alwi murdered 10 people at close range in a Boulder, Colorado grocery store. 

A previous shooting in 2019 by Connor Betts, in Dayton, Ohio, also involved a pistol brace. These are the only two such cases and, more importantly, neither of them had any difficulty holding their guns and all their shots were fired at a short distance. There is no evidence the brace made any difference in their ability to carry out the attacks. There has been no surge in crime by the disabled or others using these braces.

Gun control advocates make no attempt to provide evidence that these two attacks were any more lethal with stabilizing braces. The cost will be to the disabled Americans who will now have a harder time being able to defend themselves and their families.

 

For Immediate Release:  January 17, 2023 Contact:  Meg Deneen 202-981-3500 meg.deneen@mail.house.gov Tenney, Stefanik Reintroduce Resolution Condemning Hochul’s Concealed Carry Law As Unconstitutional Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21), reintroduced a resolution “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is unconstitutional,” today alongside Representatives Nick Langworthy (NY-23), and Darrell Issa (CA-48). In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the state’s previous unconstitutional concealed carry law, the CCIA was rammed through the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Hochul on July 1, 2022.  Following this, multiple court cases, such as Antonyuk v. Bruen and Antonyuk v.Nigrelli, were filed challenging the constitutionality of this law. These cases have been working their way through the judicial system, and most recently an emergency motion to vacate was filed with the Supreme Court. While this motion was denied, Justices Alito and Thomas noted that this motion can be refiled if the Second Circuit Court of Appeals does not explain their stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal. “The ability to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “New York State’s new concealed carry law is just another way that Kathy Hochul is working to limit New Yorker’s Constitutional rights and attack the Second Amendment. Last June, the Supreme Court repealed New York’s overly restrictive concealed carry laws, and instead of respecting the Court’s opinion, Governor Hochul chose to enact another unconstitutionally restrictive law. This resolution affirms our belief that New York’s latest law is unconstitutional and that state governments should support our Second Amendment rights, not undermine them.” “Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on our Upstate rights and values," Congresswoman Stefanik said. "We know that Hochul passed this law declaring historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park felons in direct defiance after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun laws, but still she doubled down on her unconstitutional agenda. I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the previous concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court.” “As I have said from Day One, the concealed carry law is Unconstitutional and does absolutely nothing to make New Yorkers safe. Albany’s obsession with constantly targeting law-abiding gun owners while allowing violent criminals to have free rein on our streets would be laughable if it wasn’t so deadly. I am proud to join with my colleagues in standing up against our dictatorial state government and will do everything in my power to protect New York’s Second Amendment rights,” said Congressman Nick Langworthy.   "New York's decision to flagrantly violate the Bill of Rights despite the Supreme Court's recent affirmation of the Second Amendment is appalling. Every American has the constitutionally guaranteed right to carry arms in self-defense across the state outside of their own homes. We commend Rep. Tenney for criticizing the anti-gun hysteria of New York politicians. GOA and GOF will keep fighting for our members in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli until the state admits defeat or is brought into line by the high court once again," said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America.    “We are a nation of laws. By passing the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act, Governor Hochul and the New York Legislatures have said that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States do not apply in New York State. They have ‘thrown down the gauntlet’ to the United States Supreme Court. At a time when crime is sweeping through major cities, the Governor and the Legislature want to leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. How will these citizens protect themselves from armed criminals to whom the laws mean nothing? Governor Hochul and the New York Legislatures know that they aren’t held accountable for unconstitutional laws that they pass and that the law-abiding victims of these laws must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to overturn those laws. We need “The People’s House” to step forward and protect the American people of New York State,” said Thomas Reynolds, President of New York State SCOPE. Read the full text of the resolution here.

At Large SCOPE Directors

Each SCOPE County Chapter Chair is automatically a member of SCOPE’s State Board of Directors.  There are also “At Large Board Directors” who are elected by the membership by written ballot.  An At Large Director is equal in all respects to other board members.

This is an opportunity to “step up” in the fight to preserve our 2^nd Amendment rights and to participate in and help set the direction of SCOPE’s efforts. 

The Board meets in person at the Members Meeting (in April) and the Annual Banquet (usually in September) and probably 1 other time in central New York.  It meets by ZOOM 2 or 3 other times and occasionally by ZOOM as needed (usually on Saturdays.)  Issues are sometimes discussed by E-Mails between board members in what are not official meetings but give guidance on issues to the Board’s Officers.

If you are interested, please send a notice of your candidacy and a biography, postmarked by January 1st to:

 SCOPE

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052
SUE.SCOPENY@gmail.com
 ________________________________________________________

Or E-Mail it to:
SUE.SCOPENY@gmail.com

The biography will be printed in the February edition of Firing Lines.  (We’ll help you edit it, if you need help.)

Below are some excerpts from SCOPE’s by-laws which outline the position, qualifications and procedures.

At-large directors shall be elected through ballots mailed to the members in advance of the annual meeting of members. (The ballots will be included in the Firing Lines which comes out in early February.)

Ballots shall be returned from the members and postmarked no later than the specified required postmark date.  That date shall be no fewer than 14 days prior to the date of the annual meeting of members. (The date of the Annual Meeting will also be announced in the February Firing Lines.)

The At-large Directors shall be elected to hold office for two-year terms

Directors may be elected to any number of consecutive terms.

Directors must be at least 18 years of age and must also have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years prior to their notice of candidacy. The State Board of Directors may waive the two year requirement.

To become an at-large candidate a member must give a notice of candidacy and a biography by January 1st to the election committee. The member will become a recognized candidate unless the election committee can show cause for ineligibility.

In order to be elected as an At-Large Director, a candidate must get at least 35 votes.

We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

by Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes.

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.

These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.  However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. 

While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

Under these laws, initial confiscations of firearms often require just a “reasonable suspicion,” which is little more than a guess or a hunch. Judges simply have a piece of paper in front of them with the complaint when they are first asked to take away a person’s guns. When hearings occur weeks or a month later, about a third of these initial orders are overturned, but the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher. 

During the first nine months after Florida passed its Red Flag law last year, judges granted more than 1,000 confiscation orders. In the three months after Maryland’s law went into effect, more than 300 people had their guns taken away. In one case, an Arundel County man was fatally shot in the struggle that ensued when police came to confiscate his weapons at 5 a.m. Connecticut and Indiana, which have had these laws in effect for the longest time, have seen significant increases in confiscation orders as time has gone by.

These laws let the government take firearms away from people arrested but not convicted of crimes. Even simple complaints without arrests have been enough. That is quite a change in people’s constitutional rights, and don’t be surprised if courts eventually strike down such provisions. Gun-control advocates have resisted making this change explicit in the laws, presumably out of fear that it would create problems in the courts. Also, courts frequently take into account other factors such as gender and age in predicting the chances someone will commit a crime or commit suicide.

When people really pose a clear danger to themselves or others, confine them to a mental-health facility. Guns are only one way they can do harm, and if they are intent on hurting others or themselves they can find a way. 

Consider, also, the impact Red Flag laws can have on people who need and want help. Absent such laws, a person contemplating suicide might speak to a friend or family member and be dissuaded from that dire course of action. With the laws, they may fear that speaking out will result in a report to authorities – and their ability to defend themselves or loved ones would be restricted. 

Take the case of a woman I know who saw her husband murdered in front of her by a stalker. Understandably, she was incredibly depressed, but still fearful for her safety. Under Red Flag laws, she wouldn’t talk to those closest to her about her feelings because she worried about losing her ability to protect herself. Even a well-meaning person might have gone to a judge to have this woman’s ability to defend herself taken away. She was even reticent to speak to a psychiatrist about her depression, but at least she would have an opportunity to explain her concerns with those people.

Police officers often experience depression on the job. Would we be better off if they worried that sharing their feelings might mean having their guns taken from them and the loss of their jobs? 

Liberals understood this point during the AIDS crisis. They knew that the threat of quarantining would discourage infected people from seeking medical help. But they seem unaware that the threat of leaving people defenseless might engender similar concerns. . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.

Congresswoman Tenney Introduces Resolution Condemning New York’s Concealed Carry Law As Unconstitutional

Utica, NY – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22) and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is unconstitutional. The CCIA was rushed through the state legislature and signed by Governor Hochul on July 1, 2022, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the state’s previous unconstitutional concealed carry law. The resolution was also cosponsored by Representatives Darrell Issa (CA-50), Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Jefferson Van Drew (NJ-02), Andy Harris (MD-01), Mary Miller (IL-15), and John Moolenaar (MI-04). Last year, Congresswoman Tenney led 175 of her House Republican colleagues in an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Court’s eventual ruling striking down New York’s arbitrary and unconstitutional Sullivan Law was the most significant victory for Second Amendment advocates since D.C. v. Heller. However, the state legislature then stepped in to replace the Sullivan Law with an even more outrageous law, which, among other things, requires concealed carry permit applicants to turn over their personal social media accounts, mandates interviews with state officials, and broadly bans the concealed carry of weapons in a range of public and private locations. Last week, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby blocked the state from enforcing several provisions, including bans on concealed carry in sensitive locations and requirements for applicants to turn over social media accounts. Since then, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has granted an interim stay of Judge Suddaby’s ruling in response to a motion for a stay pending appeal filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James. “Despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the Second Amendment remains under attack from far-left politicians in Albany,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The NYSRPA v. Bruen decision upheld the right of Americans to conceal carry and rejected overreaching state laws infringing on our Second Amendment right. But Democrats in New York, led by Governor Kathy Hochul, ignored that court ruling and enacted a blatantly unconstitutional law. While legal challenges against this law work their way through the courts, I am honored to stand once again in support of New Yorkers’ right to keep and bear arms.” “Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on our Upstate rights and values," said Congresswoman Stefanik. "We know that Hochul passed this law declaring historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park felons in direct defiance after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun laws, but still she doubled down on her unconstitutional agenda. I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court.” "New York's Attorney General, who is no friend of the Second Amendment, clearly isn't getting the message from the Bruen decision. Americans have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry arms in self-defense across the state outside of their own homes. While New York is appealing our victory, Mayor Adams has just signed legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and Judge Suddaby’s ruling from last week. We commend Rep. Tenney for criticizing the anti-gun hysteria of New York politicians. GOA and GOF will keep fighting for our members in Antonyuk v. Hochul until the state admits defeat or is brought into line by the high court once again," said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America. “The provisions in New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) stand in direct opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen. Such blatant disregard for the highest court in the land cannot be allowed to stand. On behalf of our five million members and our tens of million of supporters across the country, we thank Rep. Claudia Tenney for defending the rights of law-abiding gun owners and offering this important resolution," said Jason Ouimet, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. Similar resolutions have been passed by county legislatures throughout upstate New York since the law’s passage, including in Oswego, Wyoming, Orleans, and Niagara. Tenney’s resolution is supported by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). The full text of the resolution is available here.

Attorney General James Releases Statement on Court Decision to Temporarily Keep New York’s Concealed Carry Gun Laws 

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after an appellate judge granted an interim administrative stay on U.S. District Court Judge Glenn T. Suddaby’s decision in Antonyuk v. Hochul, meaning the full Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) will remain in effect:

“I am pleased that the full Concealed Carry Improvement Act will stay in effect and continue to protect communities as the appeals process moves forward. My office will continue our efforts to protect the safety of everyday New Yorkers and defend our common-sense gun laws.”

As a result of today’s decision, the full CCIA is in effect until a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit decides on the motion to stay. Earlier this week, Attorney General James filed a motion for a temporary pause on the district court’s decision to stop enforcement of some parts of the CCIA. Today, an administrative stay was granted, pausing the decision until a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit acts on the motion.

The CCIA was passed during an extraordinary session of the Legislature and enacted earlier this summer in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The law strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, requires social media review ahead of certain gun purchases, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.

No more Brady Checks in Wayne County!
September 16, 2022  by News10NBC

whec.com/top-news/no-more-brady-checks-in-wayne-county

WAYNE COUNTY, N.Y. (WHEC) — There’s been a change in the pistol permit process in Wayne County, outside of the new state laws that took effect on Sept. 1 of this year.

Up until now, a background check would have to be completed, every five years, in order for a simple amendment to be applied to a pistol permit.  Such amendments included name or address changes, and disposal of weapons.  In Wayne County, one could not make a handgun purchase unless he/she had a current five-year background check on file. 

Those background checks, also known as Brady Checks, required a comprehensive check of several systems to see if a permit holder had been involved in any activity that would initiate suspension or revocation proceedings of that permit.   That process could take up to several weeks, dependent upon the number of new applications submitted to the Sheriff’s Office.  Various political races also affected the amount of Brady Checks that were submitted.  The Brady process, combined with the regular course of business, conducting backgrounds for new pistol permit applicants lengthened the time it would take for a new applicant to acquire a permit.  

Brady Checks, enacted in 1993, mandated background checks on firearm purchases.  With informational safeguards within the criminal justice system, to include the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Sheriff Milby sought to streamline the redundancies of the system in Wayne County.  After discussions with Wayne County Court Judges and the Wayne County Clerk, a decision was made to cease the process, effective immediately.  

“Those amendments that were pending will no longer have to wait.  County Clerk, Mike Jankowski will be sending those amendments out right away.  All Brady checks on file have been grandfathered into this.  To purchase a weapon on an existing permit, a NICS check will satisfy the process, and once the NICS check clears the purchase, you may file your amendment with the County Clerk,” said the Sheriff.

Sheriff Milby wishes to remind everyone that New York State still requires all Carry Concealed Permit Holders to recertify their permits every 3 years, which can be done online, and is not a background check process.

Indianapolis, IN – The National Police Association (NPA) filed an amicus brief in support of a Preliminary Injunction against New York state’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA).

The lawsuit was filed by Ivan Antonyuk and Gun Owners of America.

In a quick response to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, the state of New York passed a comprehensive gun control law, CCIA, that will eviscerate 2nd Amendment civil rights in New York if enacted.

Contrary to the decision by SCOTUS the new law prohibits permitted concealed carry in most public places and creates scenarios where carrying concealed can be an unknowing violation of the law. Further, the new law replaces the subjective standard of having to prove a special need for 2ndAmendment rights, which was struck down by the court, with the subjective standard of having to prove possession of the moral character needed for 2nd Amendment rights. Moral as defined by who?

If allowed to go into place as law, the Second Amendment will be a legal fiction in the fourth most populous state in our union, even though the nation’s highest court just told us all, explicitly, that the Second Amendment is not a legal fiction but a full partner with the other “Bill of Rights” guarantees such as freedom of speech.

While firearms in the wrong hands are a serious concern for law enforcement, unconstitutionally keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens seeking to provide for the safety of themselves and their loved ones is just as bad. While the National Police Association supports the police, it does not support a police state, where law-abiding citizens are at minimum prevented from self-defense and at maximum turned into criminals by way of vague and unconstitutional laws.

The CCIA is bad for safety; it is bad for public policy; it is bad for law enforcement; it is bad for the rule of law. Most importantly it is patently unconstitutional and the Plaintiff’s  sought declaratory and injunctive relief should be granted in advance of the flawed act’s enactment date.

NPA spokesperson Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith stated, “A number of studies suggest that objective concealed carry regimes, and not the subjective, arbitrary regime put in place by the CCIA—can both lower violent crime and reduce the number of officer fatalities in many jurisdictions.” For this reason, plus those articulated in the Plaintiffs, Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the NPA supports Plaintiffs’ effort to have this Court declare the CCIA unconstitutional under the text of the Second Amendment and the principles recently articulated in Bruen.

The National Police Association is represented by Robert S. Lafferrandre of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The NPA’s amicus brief can be read here: https://nationalpolice.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Amicus-Curiae-Brief-of-National-Police-Association-in-ANTONYUK-GUN-OWNERS-OF-AMERICA-v-BRUEN.pdf

###

About The National Police Association

The National Police Association (NPA) is a 501(c)3 Educational/Advocacy non-profit organization. For additional information visit NationalPolice.org.

The Wayne County Clerk's office has recently updated information on their website for obtaining a pistol permit.  Note that this information is located on the Clerk's home page of the Wayne County site, and not on the previous (and still accessible) web page for pistol permit information.

The new information can be found at:

https://web.co.wayne.ny.us/186/County-Clerk

The old page is still there and can be referenced at:

https://web.co.wayne.ny.us/191/Pistol-Permits

The political scene has been replete for months, if not years, with continuous attacks on both sides of the aisle as to the need to reduce gun violence.  The fact that federal laws are already strong on background checks and transfer guidelines has done little to diminish criticism.  

Some states, including New York in 2019, have passed so-called “Red Flag” laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO).  The recent mass shooting in Buffalo occurred despite it.  This leaves critics of guns little to focus on other than more gun control especially the inclusion of increased background checks.  The House of Representatives passed in March 2021 H.R. 8.  This bill established new background requirements for firearm transfers between private parties ( i.e. unlicensed individuals).

This article attempts to educate the reader as to the facts in the bill as well as it’s failures.  As indicated “The bottom line is that the bill represents gun control measures that encroach on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens and do little to reduce gun violence.”

H. R. 8 – Facts and Failures

2.13.22

This morning, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee plan to markup H.R. 8, the ‘Bipartisan Background Checks Act.’ However, Democrats have shown little interest in incorporating conservative perspectives into their so-called ‘bipartisan’ bill. At a hearing on H.R. 8 last week, Democrats denied Whip Scalise the opportunity to testify as a member witness about his experience as a survivor of gun violence and his strong support for our Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, H.R. 8’s claim to bipartisanship isn’t the only sham part of the bill. The bottom line is that the bill represents gun control measures that encroach on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens and do little to reduce gun violence.

H.R. 8 shortfalls (courtesy of the House Judiciary Committee)

Current federal laws are already strong on background checks and transfer guidelines. 

Federal law already prohibits:

Transferring a firearm to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms.

Individuals from from transferring a handgun across state lines to someone without a firearms license.

Anyone from acquiring firearms on behalf of another person who is prohibited from possessing firearms.

Anyone from providing a handgun to a juvenile.

Dealers from selling rifles or shotguns to individuals under the age of 18.

The vast majority of firearm transfers at gun shows are conducted by federal firearms licensees performing a NICS background check.

H.R. 8 would not have stopped any of these mass shootings:

• Columbine High School, Columbine, CO – April 20, 1999
• Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA – April 16, 2007
• Fort Hood, TX – November 5, 2009
• Tuscon, AZ – January 8, 2011
• Sandy Hook Elementary, Newtown, CT – December 14, 2012
• Aurora, CO – July 20, 2012
• Navy Yard, Washington, DC – September 16, 2013
• Emanuel AME Church, Charleston, SC – June 17, 2015
• San Bernardino, CA – December 2, 2015
• Pulse Nightclub, Orlando, FL – June 12, 2016
• Las Vegas, NV – October 1, 2017
• First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, TX – November 5, 2017
• Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, FL – February 14, 2018

H.R. 8’s background check requirement on firearm transfers criminalizes the actions of honest, law-abiding citizens, including the following scenarios:

Tim is struggling with suicidal thoughts. He asks a close friend to safekeep his guns while he seeks help. Under H.R. 8, Tim potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

Shannon is a victim of violent domestic abuse. Her ex-husband and abuser is being released from prison and Shannon fears for her life. Shannon’s neighbor, Scott, lends her a firearm for self-defense. Under H.R. 8, Scott potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

Joe and Bill have been hunting together for 40 years. This year, Joe is sick and can’t make the trip, but Bill asks if he can borrow Joe’s deer rifle. Joe lends the rifle to Bill the weekend before the trip, but Bill can’t return it immediately once the trip is over. Under H.R. 8, Joe potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

Ted’s uncle wants to go to the shooting range. Ted knows he’s allowed to transfer a firearm to an aunt or uncle, so he agrees to lend him his rifle. When Ted’s cousin shows up at the door on his way to meet Ted’s uncle at the shooting range, Ted gives him the rifle. Under H.R. 8, while aunts and uncles are exempted from transfer restrictions, cousins arbitrarily are not, and Ted now potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

Highlights from Whip. Scalise’s prepared, and undelivered, testimony:

“As someone who experienced gun violence, I do not want anyone else to go through that trauma. However, it is also important to me that we be honest with ourselves and the American people about what will — or won’t — actually prevent these tragedies.”

“The new gun control restrictions currently being considered by the Democratic majority in H.R. 8 would not have prevented my shooting.”   

“Based on similar gun control measures in states like California, H.R. 8 would not deter a criminal from engaging in criminal activity, and it won’t decrease gun crime. Instead, it only succeeds in limiting the ways that law-abiding citizens could exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

“Every single month in America, law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits defend themselves and others against criminals who have guns.”

“Instead of making it harder for citizens to defend themselves until law enforcement arrives, Congress should consider legislation like H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act”

“I firmly believe we must never forget, nor minimize, the importance of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”

“If our goal is to reduce gun violence, then we should focus on penalizing criminals, not law-abiding citizens.”