If you have read this space for the last couple of issues, you’ll recall that I’ve asked what my fellow gun owners believe would be the first gun restrictions passed by President Joe Biden and the Biden-Harris Administration, as it’s formally called now. We had a lot of good (that is, bad) forecasts from savvy Gun Tests readers, but I suspected all along that we wouldn’t guess accurately, because we wouldn’t think big enough. President Biden, according to press reports, has gotten advice from a team of historians about how to leave a legacy beyond what Barack Obama or even Franklin D. Roosevelt could claim. What a frightening prospect.
But it seems moderate Senate Democrats don’t like the idea of passing big gun laws, because they fear the repercussions on their careers. In late March, Biden called on the Senate to approve two bills that would broaden background checks on gun buyers. “I don’t need to wait another minute — let alone an hour — to take common-sense steps that will save the lives in the future, and I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to act,” Biden said at the White House. Yet, legislation hasn’t advanced to his signature.
So, if you can’t pass or run the ball, then you punt. Biden is now considering “executive actions” to make it harder for regular citizens to buy guns.
The particulars included “strengthening” background checks, giving money to cities to fight gun violence, and regulating “ghost guns.”
I am LMAO at the prospect of Joe Biden trying to explain how an 80% lower can be turned into a unserialized receiver, or what they call “ghost gun.” I would pay good money to watch him try to run a mill or drill press and do it himself. Same goes for President-in-Waiting Kamala Harris.
Pointedly, such executive actions do not require the approval of Congress, and they may be challenged in the courts. For instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that former President Trump’s bump-stock ban may be unlawful. Short version of that was, Trump pushed BATFE to update the definition of “machine gun” to include firearms modified with bump stocks.
But the court said that the bump-stock issue couldn’t just be waved off. Reason: “Whether ownership of a bump-stock device should be criminally punished is a question for our society. Indeed, the Las Vegas shooting sparked an intense national debate on the benefits and risks of bump-stock ownership. And because criminal laws are rooted in the community, the people determine for themselves — through their legislators — what is right or wrong. The executive enforces those determinations. It is not the role of the executive — particularly the unelected administrative state — to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong.”
I believe we opined at the time that saying a semi-auto was an automatic was stupid and wrong. I mean, that’s like saying a man is a woman because he thinks he is. Wait….
