Republican U.S. Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York and Darrel Issa of California have introduced new federal legislation to prohibit states like the ones they represent from maintaining unconstitutional handgun rosters that require firearms to adopt costly, unnecessary features making it nearly impossible to sell new handguns.
The Modern Firearm Safety Act targets laws like California’s handgun roster and a proposal in New York that would create a similar roster, leaving gun purchasers without adequate choices when choosing a gun.
“Handgun rosters are a tactic that serves only a single purpose: to undermine the Second Amendment under the cynical pretense of firearm safety,” Issa said in a press release announcing the legislation. “These rosters impose excessive and unnecessary requirements that only restrict access to modern firearms equipped with the most up-to-date safety features. I’m proud to join Chairwoman Stefanik in defending our sacred constitutional rights and ending these unjust restrictions.”
The proposal would ban states from requiring loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect mechanisms and microstamping for handgun sales, helping restore Second Amendment rights in restrictive states. It would also align with a federal district court ruling that found California’s handgun roster requirements unconstitutional.
The measure states: “A department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, or of any State or political subdivision of a State, may not implement or enforce any provision of law or regulation that requires or has the effect of requiring, or promulgate any provision of regulation that would require or have the effect of requiring, a handgun that is in, or has been shipped or transported in, interstate or foreign commerce to—(1) incorporate a device that indicates whether the handgun is loaded; (2) incorporate a mechanism that prevents a handgun from being fired if an ammunition magazine is not fully inserted into the handgun; (3) be capable of microstamping the shell casing of ammunition with microscopic characters representing the make, model, and serial number of the handgun, when the ammunition is fired from the handgun; (4) incorporate any device, mechanism, or technology that: (A) is designed or intended to perform any function described in the preceding provisions of this section; or (B) may be readily converted to be capable of performing any such function; or (5) be capable of accepting the attachment of any device or mechanism described in paragraph (4).’’
For her part, Rep. Stefanik hopes the legislation will stop New York Democrats from instituting a California-style handgun roster in her home state of New York.
“I am proud to introduce the Modern Firearm Safety Act to put a stop to the unconstitutional gun-grabbing agenda pushed on law-abiding American citizens by Far Left Democrats like Kathy Hochul,” Rep. Stefanik said. “My legislation would ban Albany Democrats from imposing illegal handgun roster requirements meant to deter gun ownership. I will always stand up for our Second Amendment rights and provide a critical check to any entity attempting to encroach on their liberties.”
That’s nice and all, but it won’t go anywhere. This is the frustration that a lot of people have with Republicans, introducing bills in election cycles that don’t go anywhere, but when they have the majority within Congress and the presidency they don’t do it.
It’s called kabuki theater. Such bills are purely performative, allowing the sponsor to say “look at me! I’m doing something.” 99% of bills, from both sides of the aisle, are of this nature.
What we need are term limits, a maximum of two terms for the House and Senate, and cut the number of days of the year that Congress sits, to say, forty-five, plus additional in case of emergencies (like war). I’d also argue for no salaries for representatives, and only small budgets for staff.
Now these proposals are “conservative.” Congress has corroded our liberties for long enough.
Johnny LeBlanc,
When it comes to term limits, I like the idea of two terms for U.S. Senators–and I prefer four terms (8 total possible years) for U.S. Representatives.
Reducing the number of days that they are in session is a good idea as well.
I still think that we should pay them salaries–maybe on the order of $120,000 per year plus a modest allowance for a reasonable/decent apartment in the Washington D.C. area.
My fear is that Congress members who receive no salary will be absolutely ripe for payola. (Of course payola is probably rampant as it is–that is an entirely different discussion.)
As long as they make their own rules about insider trading and lobbying activity, the payola isn’t going to get fixed, at least not from within DC. The only way that will get fixed is if congress critters don’t have as much of our butts to sell to the highest bidder. Which would mean shrinking the power/influence of congress back closer to constitutional limits, which again is flat not going to happen from inside DC.
Term limits I have mixed feelings. I totally understand the appeal. On the other hand, it places limits on the rights of the voters to select their representatives, which I don’t like. To the extent they have a meaningful choice, which they often don’t with the two party system. Really, there are layers of issues to fix. But again, not from within DC. The incentives just aren’t set up that way. It would take an overwhelming popular movement, or a convention of states. All of that would be long-game kind of stuff, across generations. Well, that’s what the leftists have done, and how we have reached this point. I guess we have to stop thinking about ourselves, and start working for our grandchildren and great grand-children.
We already have term limits. It’s called the primary election. No one ever shows up to vote in them.
Johnny,
You are not wrong (oh, I could quibble over details, but in spirit I agree), but . . . as the Genie (the much-missed Robin Williams) said in “Aladdin”, “Not enough!”.
First, and foremost, ALL campaign donations, REGARDLESS of size (and including cash donations; make ’em provide ID, to be recorded, with the cash). While I believe the DONORS should have privacy (to some extent), the POLITICIANS should have NONE. I want EVERY name, and EVERYONE behind EVERY committee/PAC/’public interest’ group, etc., posted to a disclosure website on a ‘real time’ basis. If the problem is “dark money” (and to an extent, it is), then . . . let’s not HAVE any “dark money”. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If some gonof of a wanna-be rentseeker wants to hide who his/her donors are? That’s EXACTLY when I want to know who they are. Tell me who’s bribing this clown, and I’ve got a pretty good idea who owns him/her.
Second, forget ‘insider trading’ – make ALL members of government (yes, down to and including GS employees) make FULL, public disclosures of their financial interests, on a regular basis (let’s make it quarterly) so we can see how what they are voting on/regulating is possibly lining their pockets. But, more importantly, I WANT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE CORRUPT, RENTSEEKING, TROUGH-FEEDERS to be obligated to follow/participate in, and be subject to EVERY plan, program, “benefit”, regulation, etc. that ANY American is subject to. Congress should not have the ability to exempt itself from ANYTHING that they impose on us (and that goes for the drones in all the agencies, as well).
Third, limit ALL bills to a single, stated subject. The budget must be voted on AS A WHOLE, each year (none of this “continuing resolution” bullsh*t), with the EXACT allocations to each agency and department laid out as a separate line item . . . with the Prez having a “line item” veto.
For other bills, require them to address a SINGLE issue, specifically, and have a statement of what that issue is, how the bill allegedly addresses it, why it is an issue that NEEDS to be legislated, and an explanation of why the bill conforms to the Constitution. Require ALL BILLS to be available to ALL members of Congress, and posted on an (easily available) public website, at least 72 hours before any vote can be taken, and require ALL votes to be recorded “yea or nay” votes. Make ’em go on record.
I’d give ’em a (modest) salary and allowance, and limit the legislative term, as you suggested, but . . . if they are (allegedly) wanting to do “public service”, then by God let them BE public servants, as our Founders intended.
Your measures, while close in spirit, miss the point, slightly – OK, you hit the 8 ring, but, if the theory is that the real “democratic” control on Congress (and the President, and the bureaucracy) is supposed to be the ballot box, then let’s make the “business” of Congress open, and subject to PUBLIC review.
(Full disclosure, the ONE part of that rant I am wobbling over is the disclosure of details re: donors. I agree; I should be able to donate to any candidate I want, any amount I want, and do it privately, if I want. But, for this purpose, I am still ambivalent, but I think I come down on the side of . . . screw my privacy, the public has the right to know if I’M trying to buy a Congressman. But I’m open to input on that.)
LampOfDiogenes for President 2028, Party of the Bull Moose
coffeemonster,
Thanks for the props, but . . . I’m WAY too old, and too smart, to be interested in running for office!!
LoD, you have written down almost all of the faults I find in “government service”. Thanks and get your ideas published in some major publications.
PMinFl.,
Seriously? Not a SINGLE idea I wrote in that was original with me. I’ve read each of those suggestions (some, many times) from other (smarter) writers. When I hear/read a good idea, it sticks.
But, yeah, overall I think that is a good blueprint for a START at overhauling our obscenely too large and totally inefficient government. Our Founders MUST be rolling in their graves.
Ross,
I came to echo a similar sentiment.
This is the reality for the citizens of the UK now the conservatives were not and now they’ve got totalitarianism.
Republicans dont want its citizens armed, no government does. They want OTHER government’s citizens armed.
If the Democrats did a 180 and called for total end of all gun laws, the ‘pubs would announce their full support of The Trace that same afternoon.
Sad to note, but I agree. The Congress (House and Senate) have neither the brains, the requisite respect for The Constitution and their law abiding constituents, nor the intestinal fortitude, aka Guts, to tell the anti rights cabal where to get off.
Md. had a registry of every handgun with a warehouse full of once fired brass that was required upon a sale of ‘new’ handguns. Either the manufacturer would ship with a fired case or my FFL would fire into a barrel of sand and retrieve the brass for mailing to the Police Barracks in Annapolis. Problem is not one crime was solved so a few years back Md. scrapped all the brass. No doubt Md. still maintains the handgun registry (it helps keep the crime down in Baltimore don’t you know, sq.).
I’m not sure why they are against the bullet in chamber indicator. Lots of standard firearms sold today have mechanisms or view holes that allow you to know their is one in the pipe. Unless there is some weird CA, NY and IL law I’m not aware. of.
Because most don’t conform to California’s arbitrary standard.
Such an indicator might be useful. If you consider it to be useful, you are free to shop for a firearm with that feature. Some things to keep in mind are, 1. perhaps the indicator might malfunction one day, leading to a fatal accident that would have been prevented by actually CHECKING the chamber. 2. The indicator might restrict the use of some holsters. 3. The indicator might interfere with some “unorthodox” method of carry, ie, carrying in the waistband. 4. the indicator won’t prevent you being shot by a cop, who can’t tell that the weapon is not ready for firing. 5. such an indicator will add to the manufacturer’s cost, which will be passed on to you and me. 6. fill in with whatever objection you can dream up.
Paul makes some valid points.
Making the “loaded chamber indicator” mandatory is an infringement on the 2A.
The only bad thing about the indicator or witness hole is that it’s a place for gas to escape and fog up your red dot (if you have a red dot, obviously). I wouldn’t want one with a red dot. Without a dot, sure. It’d be nice to choose instead of having it forced on you.
Paul,
I was in the process of making a comment similar, but . . . even IF a gun has an indicator, in a “life and death” situation, wouldn’t you want to do a manual check, ANYWAY (assuming you had the time)?
I’m with some of the other commenters – put in whatever features you want, and let the market decide. Some folks like external, manual safeties. Others like trigger safeties, or grip safeties, or whatever (for what it’s worth, I own, and regularly use/carry, several iterations). Why should ANYONE except me get to decide??
Democrats just can’t coexist with Americans and are a threat to Western Civilization…it’s like 1865 again.
WHERE WAS ALL THIS GREAT LEGISLATION WHEN JDT45 WAS PRESIDENT AND WE HELD THE HOUSE & SENATE? Sorry for shouting? P.S. Hearing Protection Act?, Interstate Carry Reciprocity?
P.S.S. When did Daryl Issa come back to life? I thought he was out of office for the last 4 terms.
Missouri_Mule,
Note that Republicans and Democrats only “hold” or “control” the U.S. Senate if they have at least 60 members–to overcome the U.S. Senate’s “cloture rule”. Neither party has had 60 seats in the U.S. Senate for a VERY long time.
For reference the U.S. Senate imposed the cloture rule upon itself. (That is probably a good thing by the way.) The cloture rule essentially requires two U.S. Senate votes to approve a bill. The first vote requires at least 60 U.S. Senators to vote affirmatively to determine whether or not the U.S. Senate will vote on the bill a second time to actually approve the bill. (The second vote only requires a simple majority to pass.) Saying it another way, the first vote determines whether the U.S. Senate should really, REALLY, REALLY consider voting on whether or not to officially approve the bill.
In case it isn’t obvious, very few bills will ever clear that initial 60 affirmative vote count.
Caveat: the U.S. Senate is pretty much never able to achieve 60 votes in favor of anything. That means basically all bills stall in the U.S. Senate. In order to avoid budget bills never passing, the U.S. Senate amended its cloture rule and exempted budget bills. Thus budget bills go directly to a floor vote and pass with a simple majority.
WE never even got close to a vote since that Wisconsin Rino Paul Ryan pulled the Hearing Protection bill. I am not a fan of the Filibuster 60 vote rule. Senators should have to speak or vote not just send a note saying they won’t vote.
This law is unnecessary: our U.S. Constitution prohibits handgun rosters and federal law already provides the mechanism for fedzilla to prosecute (with hefty fines and prison sentences) government employees for “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.
Illegal entry is a racket. Assume 20m entries at 1500$:average paid to underworld facilitators, that is 30 x 10^9 dollars (check my math).
30 billion USD for openers, and you thought the Border Czar was a do nuthin airhead..
That is one helluva racket, even discounting the multifarious continued activities of the invaders, and federal racketeering laws apply…
…to include “sanctuaries” of all kinds.
If you want to light a fire under the DOJ. that is where to start.
Now do the “non-profits” with highly paid employees using your tax dollars(!) to facilitate the invasion of our country. Oh yeah. There are incentives all around to make this happen.
Where were legislators 25 years ago? They could go further and make all gun laws federal level only. No local or state allowed.
One assumes that the people who proposed the above appearing legislation are unaware of the fact that revolvers retain cartridge cases when fired. As to pistols, the following questions remain. Would all this micro stamped data survive firing, extraction and ejection in the case of pistols? The foregoing are just two questions that come to mind at the moment. Seems like the plans proposers need to provide factual answers.
“As long as they make their own rules about insider trading and lobbying activity, the payola isn’t going to get fixed, at least not from within DC. The only way that will get fixed is if congress critters don’t have as much of our butts to sell to the highest bidder. Which would mean shrinking the power/influence of congress back closer to constitutional limits, which again is flat not going to happen from inside DC.”
ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT !!!
Sorry to intrude, but let me clarify what “Coin Of the Realm” means in many instances in Washington DC:
Let’s say you pass legislation to pull the rug out from under an ally with which you have helped fight a war. Because that war was vastly unpopular, due to the fear most men had of the draft, and the landslide of TV and movies portraying those who DID GO as human garbage.
“How can we ever repay you, our true heroes?” they say.
Well, you have access to hot and cold running redheads, blondes and all manner of “Thank You” sex.
AND piles of greenbacks. Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t an outlier or an anomaly. He was just one of many gubmint sideshows. “It’s just business”, like shooting somebody’s father would be…
And thus the swamp was made perfect.
Those D-Bag tools that did that to Viet Nam, and its Veterans, should burn in Hell. If you doubt this, find a Vietnamese who SURVIVED the reeducation camps and listen to their story. If you don’t get teared up and disgusted, you probably vote Democrat.
A law without a penalty is meaningless.
Spell out the funds that the federal government will hold back from the states who make laws counter.
Comments are closed.