Thursday, June 23, 2022

Bipartisan Bill Misreading

6/22/22 RedState published this assessment of the bipartisan gun bill that Republicans tricked the now desparate Democrats into supporting:

People assume that language to mean that a person will have the right to know the evidence against them, to confront their accuser/adverse witnesses, et cetera, before they’re stripped of their rights. That is not what that language means. A court can still decide to have an ex parte hearing, and the quantity and types of evidence the Respondent (the civil version of Defendant) can present.

They assume that because the law directly says that.  In light of today's decision, I expect the Court will impose the existing due process requirements.

Under this bill, if you occasionally sell a gun in a private transaction and you do it for a profit (not many people do it for a loss), you must register to become a Federal Firearms Licensee – which is not an easy or inexpensive thing to achieve, much less maintain. So if you’re not trying to liquidate your collection but just want to make some money, you could run into a problem.

The language requires "regular and repetitive": Do it once a year and no jury outside DC will convict and BATF knows that.  Do it every month and the dealer provision makes perfect sense.  If anything, this takes away another "gun show loophole" claim.

But hey, if you’re selling guns for criminal purposes or terrorism, don’t worry about registering as an FFL.  

Actually it is precisely prohibited without an FFL.

The legal and criminal justice systems have the necessary tools to prohibit dangerous individuals from possessing firearms – including prosecuting felonious level conduct as a felony.

True, but in some states what should be prosecuted as felonies are not.  This is why the Lautenberg Amendment happened.  A social worker I know has seen judges try to talk victims into dropping misdemeanor charges so the wife-beater will be able to keep hunting.

Groups like Moms Demand, Everytown, the Brady Center, and the Giffords Law Center will position themselves as “experts” with “science-backed” or “data-backed” positions and policies and suggest full “red flag law” verbiage to selected legislators in state capitols throughout the country. That’s been their modus operandi for years, and now that they know there’s hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding available, they’ll ratchet it up.

Yes, the "experts" will weigh in but that is already guaranteed.  And states that request those funds will now need to engage in due process.  This would eviscerate the worst of these laws.


  1. Most of the people who sell at gun shows on anything like a regular basis were FFLs, and would like to be again, but BATF refused their renewal applications.

    F-Troop has been making a concerted effort to reduce the number of FFLs. They've driven something like 90% of them out of business.

    1. Demonstrating that BATF would not renew their FFLs is a pretty well perfect defense unless BATF can prove that they are not qualified for a license.

    2. BATF invented new reasons. Most common was that they didn't have a store front and their home address wasn't zoned for business.

    3. Yes they got me that way. Of course, if I had stayed in the business it would be a big mistake. A lack of a license means stop.

  2. "They assume that because the law directly says that. In light of today's decision, I expect the Court will impose the existing due process requirements."

    I tried to read the bill and to be honest it confused me. Can you explain it in some detail for me? Even better, could I interview you for a podcast, 6-8 minutes total edited time?

    Podcast is Assorted Calibers Podcast, which is a pro-gun pro-self defense podcast.

    1. Glad to do so. Yes, the language is not as clear as I would like.