The Department of Justice under the current Biden administration, has introduced a new pair of gun control “rules” with the goal being to bring regulations into compliance with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).
The BSCA, mostly passed by Democrats, saw 15 “Republicans” led by John Cornyn (R-TX) abandoning their constituent base and values to back the proposal by their colleagues across the aisle who never fail to stand atop the graves of anyone to further their gun control agenda. For RINOs (Republican In Name Only), it was an emotional and reactionary response to the Uvalde, Texas, tragedy where 19 children and two adults were killed by a gunman at Robb Elementary School.
If my disposition comes off as insensitive on the matter, I assure you it is the exact opposite. You see, none of the provisions of the BSCA would have prevented the shooting. However, taxpayer dollars went into the proposal, and Biden signed it into law, marking the first major gun control package since the expired Clinton era “assault weapons ban.” The effort and resources would have been better spent on an honest analysis of measures that could be taken to actually prevent such a tragedy in the future, such as armed and well-trained teachers, including dedicated school security personnel. Unfortunately, these are the pipe dreams of someone who actually wants to prevent a tragedy from occurring rather than exploit it.
Regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a DOJ press release on December 4 reads:
“Following the language of the BSCA, the Firearm Handlers Rule proposes that federal firearm licensees (FFLs), such as gun stores, be allowed to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to voluntarily conduct employment background checks for certain employees. Current NICS regulations prohibit FFLs from initiating background checks for any purpose other than the transfer of firearms. Under the Firearm Handlers NPRM, FFLs will be permitted to request NICS background checks for current or prospective employees who may handle firearms, ammunition, or related materials. The Firearm Handlers Rule NPRM details the scope of employees eligible for background checks, as well as new NICS statuses proposed for such checks.”
“The second NPRM, known as the Under-21 Rule, would codify enhanced NICS background check procedures for prospective firearm purchasers under 21 years of age, among other changes. Under the BSCA, NICS is required to conduct enhanced background checks for such under-21 purchasers, by contacting certain state and local entities to determine if a juvenile record, such as a criminal conviction or mental health record, may disqualify the purchaser from possessing a firearm. The FBI began performing these enhanced checks in late 2022 and has denied nearly 1,000 transactions solely because of enhanced outreach.”
The second proposed rule, AG Order No. 6100-2024, would require enhanced background checks on adults under 21 who wish to purchase a firearm, allowing the FBI to contact local and state organizations to inquire about juvenile criminal and mental health records. Note these agencies, however, are not required to respond to such communications, some of which are explicitly prohibited due to state law.
There is absolutely zero connection between these rules and preventing a Uvalde-style attack in the future. The assumption that 6100-2024 could have prevented the shooting due to the age of the gunman being 18 is extremely short-sighted. Criminals have a long history of obtaining firearms, explosives, vehicles and other instruments used to maim and kill by illegal means. They are criminals, after all. This measure is the equivalent of installing a 1-inch speedbump to prevent a 4×4 from driving down your street.
Moreover, both of these proposed “rules” seek to change laws, making them unconstitutional as this is a function of Congress. This test has caused multiple ATF “rules” to fail as courts have decided that the agency exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), also striking down Chevron deference, which formerly provided the regulatory agency final say on interpreting the meaning of a law. In other words, they overstepped their bounds.
The DOJ, however, believes they can avoid potential legal challenges by citing BSCA compliance, and as such, the proposed “rules will be posted to the Federal Registry for public comment. Due to the length of the comment period, however, any final rule stemming from the procedure will fall under the incoming Trump administration. I hope I speak for myself as well as all Second Amendment advocates by saying that if President Trump keeps to his promises, these “rules,” as well as other infringements on Americans’ right to bear arms, might become a moot point in the coming months.
I suspected the democrats in general, and the Biden administration in general, would try to pull some B.S. before the Uhaul trucks backed up to the door.
Unlikely to be a desk/chair for Trump to sit at in the WH on Jan 21.
Biden in particular I meant.
Cut the chase…On the behalf of millions of defenseless people who endured slavery, torture and murder we can never allow armchair emotions to jeopardize Freedom by falling for Gun Control a diabolical Agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.
h ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=WlItbl9SOAg&feature=shared
nope.
Awww, it gives her a (mis-guided) sense of purpose to do that, kinda like why an ant does what an ant does, in robotic function…
Gun Control is rooted in the superiority complexes of the Ruling Class. Nothing more and nothing less.
The pattern is very simple and the same everywhere in the world throughout world History. The Ruling Class burnishes their superiority complex, declares that some demographic is “inferior”, disarms that newly minted “inferior” class, and then goes on to use, abuse, exploit, consume, and sometimes even exterminate the “inferior” class.
Note that “inferior” classes may coincide with a multitude of arbitrary characteristics: some examples include ethnicity, race, heritage, economic status, educational status, sex at birth, and political affiliation.
I don’t see a huge issue with letting gun shops do background checks on prospective employees if they want to do that (provided that is not forbidden by law otherwise). Is it mandatory under the proposed rule, or just an option?
Will probably start as the latter before becoming the former by fiat and intimidation.
Most businesses conduct a background check on prospective employees. This rule would only allow the gun shop to use NICS. I agree with hawkeye below. We should do away with NICS
You should take a look at how the FFL’s got their start. You’d be amazed at what a sensible and good thing it was at the time, and how it became the horror show it is today.
The Hog is going to fix the demtard party!
h ttps://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/12/16/gun-control-activist-david-hogg-running-vice-chair-dnc/
In the mean time Illegals seem to acquire weapons with ease.
They apparently import their own ammo from Mexico.
I don’t think I like the idea of expanding the utility of NICS. It really should be done away with, along with the database that AFT swears they don’t have. There are lotsa other options for doing a BGC.
The company that does my HVAC, plumbing, and electrical work (and maintenance) uses an external company to do background checks on all employees.
I don’t know if it’s a NICS background check, but the one they do will catch you if you’re in and out of prison, or have been convicted of a felony.
Both companies (the HVAC company AND the background check company) say that it’s important to check everybody; not just the people going into customers’ homes to do work.
The back-office people have access to customer sensitive information, such as home address and other details, credit card information or other payment information, and more.
The check company told the story once about how they had a new client company, and they had an employee who was not present when everybody else was being BC’d. The BC included drug testing, and everybody all the way up to the owner had to submit to it.
So this one absent employee, we’ll call him “John”…was ostensibly not there because he had been deployed in the US Navy. This had happened before, so nobody in the company thought anything of it.
The new BC company couldn’t do a drug test on “John”, of course, but they COULD still run a background check on him. It turns out that “John” was in jail for a 6-month stretch for some crime that he had committed; he was not out sailing around the horn of Africa like he said.
Worse yet, the BC company learned that “John” was a REGULAR TENANT of various jails over the years. And when they matched up the dates, they found that every one of John’s imprisonments cooincided with a so-called “naval deployment”.
It is often said that criminals spend more time fabricating their public persona and backstories than they would if they had just gotten an honest job. This was certainly true of “John”.
Background Checks and drug screens can be VERY slow, too.
In one of my jobs as an IT manager, I got a long long runaround story from a new-hire about completing his pre-employment drug screening. He was concerned that his recent bout with Covid, combined with the stuff they gave him, would cause him to have a false-positive in his drug screen.
That’s a reasonable concern, so I referred him to HR to manage that process. As the hiring manager, I had neither the authority to delay his screening requirements nor to disqualify him. That’s an HR thing.
It took HR almost 3 months (during which time he could not report for work) to come back to me and tell me that he had finally failed the Background Check. I said, “The BC was done 3 months ago, and we’re just waiting for him to complete and pass the drug screen.”
The reply was that the drug screen was PART of the BC. “Well, if he had failed the BC part of the background check, you would have told me 3 months ago and we never would have waited this long for a drug screen to be completed. If you’re a bank robber, we still can’t hire you; not even if you’re clean, Right?”
“You’re not wrong; I just can’t say it out loud,” was the reply from the HR person, who went on to say that the person was given “multiple chances”.
So my team and I had to wait several months to find out that we weren’t getting a new team member.
Background checks kind of suck. But in that case, I’m glad we didn’t end up hiring somebody who would have been bad for the team.
Young adults can not buy Vodka in the United States unless they are 21 and just about every business performs back ground checks.
But so what if the guy behind the counter is a felon or not doesn’t matter to me if he is doing a good job.
And honestly it’s just way to easy to get a felony charge on a person nowadays.
To many laws.
I sincerely hope that the unarmed citizens of the USA are paying attention to all the butchery going on in this country by vicious gang-bangers and other assorted trash; abandon their objections to firearms and get the most gun and training they can possibly afford. The sheep need to grow some teeth and claws.
Yet another unarmed teacher died in a gunfree zone WI yesterday. No SRO, no metal detectors, no sprays, tasers, armor, nothing…
It doesn’t help when “the system” is against you and for the criminals.
Comments are closed.