gun control

Biden’s gun control plan is terrible for firearm owners on the left – The Washington Post

Over the past few weeks, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been rolling out task forces, policy platforms and all manner of other legislative bells and whistles as he ramps up his bid to unseat President Trump. Predictably, none of his proposals have hit with the same force as progressive blockbusters such as Medicare-for-all or the Green New Deal (neither of which he supports). But Biden did shake the table in a different way in 2019 when he debuted his gun control platform. Later that year, when he bumbled into a heated exchange with a Detroit factory worker, who accused him of trying to “take away our guns,” right-wingers and gun rights groups gloated over the spectacle. But even now, after the world has changed several times over, it’s still hard to shake the feeling that that worker was right. To the dismay of firearm enthusiasts on the left, Biden is still coming for some people’s guns. It’s now just a matter of who’s going to have them snatched — and who isn’t.

Former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) may have pulled the most attention with his brash anti-gun rhetoric during the primaries, but Biden’s less ambitious plan still offers plenty of cause for alarm for firearm owners. Alongside a raft of more common-sense measures (and a confusing aside about “smart gun technology”), its centerpiece is a ban on the manufacture and sale of what are known as “assault weapons,” with a proposal to bring their regulation under the National Firearms Act. This 1934 law currently applies to “machine guns” (i.e. fully automatic firearms), silencers and short-barreled rifles, but Biden’s plan would extend it to apply to what he characterizes as “assault weapons,” meaning semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with interchangeable magazines that fire intermediate cartridges (the most notorious of which is the AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle) as well as “high capacity magazines” (generally understood under the 1994 bill to be those that can hold more than 10 bullets). Individuals who already own these items would be required to participate in a federal buyback program or register each of their qualifying firearms and magazines under the NFA — which comes with a $200 price tag (on top of extra fees incurred during the registration process). When it was first enacted in 1934, that $200 fee was intended to be prohibitively expensive; now, inflation aside, it still is for many people.

Given how costly some firearms can be, that registration fee may not sound like too much of an added burden, but for a person who has already bought and paid for multiple qualifying firearms and magazines (or inherited them), that amount will add up quickly. Those who violate the NFA will also face up to 10 years in federal prison, and a potential $10,000 fine. Biden also wants to end the online sale of firearms and ammunition, including gun parts and parts kits that some people use to manufacture their own low-cost DIY firearms (known as ghost guns) further limiting accessibility.

Regardless of one’s opinion on guns and gun control, it is obvious that this proposal will disproportionately impact poor and working-class communities. Those within those communities who already own firearms would be robbed of their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones, while their wealthier counterparts would skate by on their ready piles of cash. Stephen Paddock perpetrated one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history and could afford dozens of high-powered weapons and a plush Las Vegas hotel suite; this plan would have no effect on someone like him. In effect, Biden’s plan sets in motion a “war on guns,” the same way his predecessors declared wars on “poverty,” “crime” and “terror” — wars in which it was inevitably black and brown people who were the real targets.

Though acknowledging the fact may be uncomfortable for Biden, millions of people in this country own firearms, and not all of them fit into the stereotype of the right-wing gun nut. Armed community defense is a timeworn activist tradition that has once again entered the spotlight as the Black Lives Matter movement has continued to build across the nation. Protesters in various cities have been met with violence from self-proclaimed white supremacists, militias and assorted right-wing malcontents with money to burn on the biggest guns they can find. In some cases, armed community members have stepped up to serve as a barrier between the people and those who seek to cause them harm. Whether anyone “needs” an AR-15 is besides the point; simply put, heavily armed right-wing militia members have threatened protesters, and others on the right have even shot at them. With that in mind, some folks don’t want to be left empty-handed when self-proclaimed white supremacists or other right-wing extremists come marching into their community. And it is those community defenders and other regular working people who will bear the brunt of this proposed legislative switch.

Biden’s plan falls into a long line of government efforts to disarm the working class while keeping the lanes clear for the privileged who can afford whatever legal curveballs are thrown their way. A crystallizing moment in the history of the U.S. gun control movement came in 1967, when the Black Panthers held an armed protest on the steps of the California Capitol; at the time, hoping to keep guns out of the hands of black people, the National Rifle Association pushed hard in favor of gun control, and strict legislation soon followed. The NRA’s stance on gun control has taken a hard right turn since then, but as was shown by the organization’s silence when Philando Castile, a black gun owner, was killed by police, some things haven’t changed much at all.

On the most generous reading, the goal of Biden’s plan is to ensure that there are fewer guns in the world and in the streets. But even in that spirit, we still have to think about who’s going to end up with the guns that remain in private hands. People like Mark McCloskey, the lawyer made infamous for brandishing his AR-15 at Black Lives Matter protesters as they walked past his sprawling St. Louis mansion, will be able to pay whatever fees Biden throws at them, and will thus be able to hold onto as many weapons as they like. But territorial weekend warriors who feel no accountability to the community, and show little regard for gun safety, are exactly the kind of people who shouldn’t have guns. By contrast, leftist community firearm clubs invest serious time into training and safety education, carefully vet their memberships and work arm-in-arm with the marginalized communities they are invited to protect.

And yet under Biden’s plan, the former are who will be able to afford to hold onto as much firepower as they so desire, while the people they want to hurt will be left high and dry. Simply depriving poorer people access to firearms will not rectify the structural issues such as poverty, inequality and lack of economic mobility that are correlated with gun violence. The plan says nothing about handguns, which are responsible for far more deaths than other kinds of guns, or about expanding mental health services, or disarming the police who are responsible for an unconscionable amount of gun deaths. Nor does it do anything about the networks of right-wing radicalism that have inspired the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorist attacks or the media pundits and politicians (including Trump himself) whose rhetoric exacerbates the problem. It just focuses on the big, scary guns. If cutting down on gun violence is the end goal here, what good could it possibly do to disarm the working class and ensure that only the well-heeled (and the agents of the state who defend them) will be able to hoard stockpiles of highly efficient weaponry? Gun sales have already skyrocketed during the ongoing coronavirus crisis, and political tensions throughout the country are incredibly high. This divisive plan will do little to curb gun violence, and will instead hammer home the vast inequalities still dividing this nation.

 

www.mtrcustomleather.com 

Source: Biden’s gun control plan is terrible for firearm owners on the left – The Washington Post

California teachers put new pressure on gun sellers – CBS News

Their $222 billion pension fund threatens to sell its shares in any that resist its push to limit sales

WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. – One of the largest public pension funds in the nation voted Wednesday to use its financial might to pressure gun retailers across the country to stop selling military-style assault weapons and accessories like rapid-fire “bump stocks” used at the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

The $222.5 billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System said it will try to unseat board members at companies that resist and could dump their stock if they still refuse to conform to laws already in effect in California.

The fund plans an accompanying publicity drive to leverage the student-led nationwide push following the February massacre at a Florida high school. Fund officials also are lobbying other pension funds and investors to join their campaign. The system funds pensions for more than 900,000 public school educators and their families.

Aside from outlawing bump stocks and restricting assault-style weapons, California bans sales of magazines holding more than 10 bullets and assault rifles that can rapidly be reloaded.

Opponents said the board is setting a dangerous precedent.

If Congress and other states won’t act to prevent schools “from becoming killing fields, then let’s take the battle to where the money is,” said state Treasurer John Chiang, a Democrat who led the push and is running for governor in next month’s primary election.

The board acted as Democratic state lawmakers introduced legislation that would require the nation’s largest public pension system to similarly pressure retailers to stop selling military-style weapons and attachments. The $350 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System declined to do so in March.

Both the teachers and public employee funds had already divested from assault weapon manufacturers after the 2012 slayings at a Connecticut elementary school.

San Diego area teacher Jessica Moore told board members Wednesday that her job now includes plotting exit routes and comforting children during lockdowns. “I think in terms of taking a bullet for them,” she said tearfully.

Retired teacher and San Diego gun control advocate Carol Landale urged the board to “hit the gun industry in the pocketbook.”

“I do not want my dollars invested in an industry that sells weapons that kill children,” Landale said.

Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes in an email called Chiang’s support “a desperate move by a desperate politician trying anything to gain attention.”

Firearms Policy Coalition spokesman Craig DeLuz said: “Lawmakers are moving beyond unconstitutionally regulating guns and toward using the force of government to bully and coerce the market. This isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a cliff that hostile government actors are forcing people and businesses to walk off.”

The teachers’ fund invests about $465 million in 10 retailers, but the bulk — $344 million — is in Walmart (WMT), which did not respond to a request for comment.

Walmart is among retailers that already stopped selling assault weapons and bump stocks, and Chiang could not say what more he wants the company to do. Sen. Anthony Portantino of La Canada Flintridge, who is carrying the related legislation, said recent changes by Walmart and other retailers show the power of public pressure.

Board member Paul Rosenstiel said the fund’s investment represents less than 1 percent of Walmart’s stock and questioned devoting $280,000 for two staff members to coordinate the fund’s lobbying effort. But he went along when the fund’s chief investment officer, Christopher Ailman, said he’s working to recruit other funds to join the effort.

“We are going to do our part,” said the fund’s investment committee chairman, Harry Keiley. “Sadly, it will not end the horrific violence in America’s public schools but … we did what we could.”

Source: California teachers put new pressure on gun sellers – CBS News

Is This the Moment for Gun Control? A Gridlocked Congress Is Under Pressure – The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers will return to Washington on Monday facing intense public pressure to break their decades-long gridlock on gun control, a demand fortified by a bipartisan group of governors calling for Congress to take action to protect against mass shootings.

But even as members of both parties said it might be difficult for Congress to remain on the sidelines after the school massacre this month in Parkland, Fla., lawmakers have no clear consensus on even incremental changes to gun restrictions, let alone more sweeping legislation.

Over a weeklong recess, Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate remained largely silent on gun legislation, a reflection of the significant obstacles to passing even modest measures this year.

Many Republicans fear primary challenges from the right in the midterm elections this fall and do not want to be pushed into difficult votes. Democrats are not eager for legislation that they deem too incremental. And with lawmakers of both parties looking to wrap up their work to focus on their campaigns for re-election, the time to pass any significant legislation is running short.

If the past is prologue, Congress will do nothing.

But governors who gathered in Washington for their annual winter meeting warned of the perils of inaction. Animated by a wave of polling since the Florida massacre, Democratic governors warned that candidates would pay a political price for opposing new gun regulations, and some of their Republican counterparts conceded that the pleas of voters could no longer be ignored as they increasingly abandon the party.

“I think for Republicans our challenge in the next race is going to be about appealing to the suburban vote that hasn’t been so good for Republicans the last few races,” said Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee, citing in particular suburban women. It is clear, he added, that “people want to see action.”

The combination of political pressure from the governors and moves by President Trump to embrace certain limited measures opposed by the National Rifle Association could set up a congressional showdown with the powerful firearms lobby not seen since the gun debate that followed the deadly school shooting in 2012 in Newtown, Conn.

The sudden focus on guns is likely to complicate an already busy agenda. Congress left Washington without coming up with a replacement for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation and expires next week. A contentious debate over gun legislation could push immigration to the back burner.

While the Newtown massacre and the many that have followed have produced familiar scenes in which Democrats push for tough new gun restrictions and Republicans dig in and resist, the latest mass shooting appears to have shifted the landscape, even if just slightly, as the Parkland students have become overnight gun control advocates and media fixtures.

A smattering of congressional Republicans — including some who have been staunchly opposed to gun control legislation — now suggest that they would be willing to take at least small steps toward restricting gun rights.

After being jeered at a forum televised on CNN, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said last week that he would reconsider his opposition to limiting high-capacity magazines. Another Florida Republican, Representative Brian Mast, an Army veteran who lost both of his legs to a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, called for a ban on the purchase of assault weapons.

Gun control advocates are looking toward the changing political climate in Florida, where the Republican governor, Rick Scott, and state lawmakers defied the N.R.A. in proposing to raise to 21 the minimum age to buy any firearm.

Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, is teaming up with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, on legislation that would raise to 21 from 18 the age threshold for purchasing assault weapons like the AR-15 used to kill 17 people in Parkland.

poll released by CNN on Sunday, which showed support for stricter gun laws at levels not seen since the early 1990s, found that 71 percent of Americans backed barring those under 21 from buying any type of firearm.

“I don’t know if crossing the Rubicon is the right historical analogy, but there is a sense that this is different,” Mr. Flake said, adding, “Where the public is and where some Republicans have been on some of these issues just doesn’t match, and I do think we’re going to have to deal with it.”

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, a longtime ally of the N.R.A., has said he would back such an age-restriction proposal. “Certainly nobody under 21 should have an AR-15,” he told reporters in Kansas last week.

Mr. Flake, however, is not seeking re-election, and Mr. Roberts, 81, is unlikely to run again in 2020.

At the governors’ meeting, there was agreement on the issue between Democrats and some Republicans. “We do it for alcohol; we’re talking about raising the age for tobacco to 21,” said Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah, a Republican. “I think that’s worth talking about.”

Lawmakers have no clear consensus on even incremental changes to gun restrictions, let alone more sweeping legislation.

Source: Is This the Moment for Gun Control? A Gridlocked Congress Is Under Pressure – The New York Times

Scroll to top