H.R. 4380: Game changing gun legislation?

71
6122

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2014 — There is a bill in Washington, quietly introduced by Steve Stockman, R-Texas, which has the potential to change the game on national gun politics. Of course there are many bills which sit idly on agendas, on committees, waiting to be read by those who could probably care less about its success or passage. All of these bills concerning firearm rights have a potential impact on the freedoms of American gun owners and the gun industry, but what makes H.R. 4380 different from most of those pieces of legislation is that it will be significant before it even passes.

According to https://www.govtrack.us/ only 11% of bills introduced in the previous legislative session have made it passed committee, while a meager 2% actually were signed into law. The legislative tracking site gives H.R. 4380 a 9% chance of making it past committee, and a lofty 2% probability of being signed.

H.R. 4380 is the Gun Confiscation and Registration Prevention Act.

Why is it important?


So happy you asked.

The bill is short and sweet, so short it is included below.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Gun Confiscation and Registration

Prevention Act”.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING GUN CONFISCATION AND REGISTRATION.

None of the funds made available through the NICS Improvement

Amendments Act of 2007 or the Community Oriented Policing Services

[COPS] Program shall be provided to any jurisdiction which:

(a) maintains a registry of gun ownership; or

(b) conducts a program of gun confiscation directed at any firearm

which is not prohibited by Federal law or any group of persons who are

not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law.”

What this bill is, whether or not intended by the pro-gun Congressman from Texas, is a test. It is a test to discern who among the United States Congress, and the United States Senate, are potential proponents of gun registration in the United States. It feels out who is for and who is against gun confiscation in the United States.

If this bill passes committee and comes to a vote, it has the potential to put every politician in the House on record for being pro-registration or anti-registration, right before the 2014 elections, and in plenty of time for the 2016 cycle. Americans will simply look at the title of the bill, they will look at who is sponsoring it, and who is opposing it, and they will have a clear picture as to who in Congress supports their right to bear arms, and who in Congress is seeking to subvert that right.

This bill is a win-win for the Republicans, and a terrible losing situation for the Democrats.

For the Republicans, the result of this bill can only end up gaining them political traction. If it passes, they get to go to their constituents to say how they fought for their right to bear arms, how they fought against a leviathan, overreaching government who was coming for their guns. They get to enjoy the favor of the gun lobby, they get to put this victory under their belt, a stamp on the side of their legislative fighter jet, and they get to enjoy the spoils of their triumph.

If it fails to pass, they get to point to every single nay vote in the room and paint them as vehemently anti-gun. They get to beg the gun lobby for more money to help oust the gun grabbers in Congress, and they get to whip American gun owners up into a frenzy, they get to turn the 2014 elections into a gun-centric debate, and if the Republicans take the majority of the victories, they get to say it is a referendum on gun rights.

For the Democrats, this bill backs them right up into a corner. By opposing this bill, which most of them will, it puts their name down in history as politicians who opposed legislation essentially preventing the registration and confiscation of firearms in the United States of America. We have heard for years during the recent gun-control debates that Liberal anti-gun politicians are not out to take away our guns, they are not coming for our right to bear arms, and that Conservative pundits and redneck voters are just paranoid.

This puts the cards on the table. If this bill passes the House and goes to the Senate, then the Democrat run chamber will most likely defeat it, providing fodder for their enemies. They too will be painted as anti-gun and pro-registration, and the gun lobby will throw support behind whoever is willing to challenge them in primary and general elections.

If this for some reason is able to pass the House and the Senate, with every single yay and nay vote a matter of public record, it of course will be up to the President to sign it. If he signs it, the Federal government will be unable to use their money to promote the confiscation and registration of firearms in the United States. If he does not sign it, the Democrats become the party that is pro-gun registration and confiscation, and chaos will ensue.

The Liberal media will do their best to downplay the significance of the bill, they will say how it doesn’t really mean “confiscate” like people think. They will spin it to make the American people believe that because this bill was passed, countless lives will be lost, or because it was vetoed, countless lives were saved.

This bill is important, it draws an important line in the sand and forces Washington to pick sides. If it makes it out of committee, a move the Republicans would be foolish not to make, then it will put politicians on record for being pro-confiscation, despite years of apologists saying otherwise. It will cement a victory for the 2nd Amendment, it will energize American gun owners, and perhaps it will restore a little bit of faith that there are those in government who actually believe in limiting the power and scope of the Federal leviathan. This bill does not need to pass to make in impact, it does not need resounding support for it to have national repercussions, its passage would be monumental, but its failure would speak louder and more defiantly than its victory.

Read, follow, share @bckprchpolitics and Back Porch Politics on Facebook 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • RGZ_50

    Connor, thanks for bringing this bill to our attention. Steve Stockton is looking like a up and coming superstar in Congress.

  • Josh Scott

    This is pure genius.

    • She_patriot

      You do realize that laws are not obeyed by the government during marshal law! I have seen so many members of the GOP turn on the American people and our way of life that I am quite leery! An up and coming senator from Florida, Marco Rubio was used by the GOP elite to sucker folks about immigration so what is stopping them from doing the same thing with dis-arming America ? Just saying………

  • ShariLea

    I understand the reasoning behind this bill, but we already have a document to prevent gun control. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.They just need tot do their jobs and support/enforce the laws already on the books. We’re drowning in a sea of laws; the last thing we need is any new ones.
    Just and FYI for those who might not know – Steve Stockman ran against John Cornyn in the senate primary held recently in Texas. Had Mr. Stockman not thrown his hat in the ring (and he ran a very strange campaign) and split the vote, we might have had a new truly conservative, constitutional senator from Texas who would back Ted Cruz in Washington – Dwayne Stovall.

    • robin Grace

      DC Legislators are legislating money for themselves to gain power over the public with our own funds. That is a Problem to me

    • NormB

      Libertarians: getting democratic socialists and other progressives elected since 1971.

      • Andy Z

        Let me set the record straight for you I am a Libertarian but registered Republican as are a lot of my friends. I will vote for the most constitutional conservative person in primaries and the elections.

        • VT Patriot

          Although I am for many libertarian ideas, as in the past, every time a libertarian is running against a repub or a cons, the election goes to the progressives. Stand tall with your beliefs, just don’t complain about the results.

      • Morvis

        That’s just big party rhetoric to discourage third parties.

        • mcrognale

          No. It’s not. Andy Z is absolutely correct. If conservatives/Republicans don’t win we don’t get to govern. The dems are famous for encouraging third party candidates because they know for certain that the candidate will siphon off enough votes from the Republicans to ensure a dem/prog/lib/traitor win. So unless you are willing to continue being enslaved by the dems you need to vote for Republicans.

          • Charles Hammond Jr

            He who doesn’t vote for the lesser of two evils takes the risk of having to tolerate the greater of two evils.

            Do the smart thing and vote for the better candidate… even if he is the lesser of two evils.

          • David Wright

            See my post above.

          • David Wright

            There are two chances of me voting R (especially establishment R): slim and none. As a party, there is not one red cent worth of difference between pubbies and rats. Which is why I have a special loathing for you pubbies who think your party owns my vote, even though I am a registered Independent.

    • Bruce A. Frank

      Many judges over the century have refused to allow the Constitution to be used as the law basis to challenge restrictive gun laws.

      • Andrew Ward

        More Guns Less Crime? How exactly is that working out for you? Pay a visit to Europe where pretty much nobody ever gets killed with a firearm. A gun can’t really be used as a defensive weapon, because whoever fires first wins – unless you’re claiming you can shoot the perp’s bullet out of the air before it hits you? That would be some mad skills.

        • Kaliope

          Because being dead is so much worse if you were killed by a gun.

          You may want to compare the United States’ violent crime rate to the U.K.’s, you’d be surprised. Especially broken down per capita. (Hint: approximately 400 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the U.S. in 2012, approximately 2,240 per 100,000 people in the U.K. in 2012)

        • Erik Burney

          Numbers don’t lie. US counties with the highest rates of legal gun ownership and the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest violent crime rate while the counties with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime. Those same counties also happen to have respective correlations to either Republican or Democrat majorities.
          Yeah, Europe makes the subjugation of its citizens quite comfortable. You should move there.

          • Barcelo

            Europe is ridiculously restrictive. You have to get a license from the government to watch television. You used to have to get a special drivers license if you wanted to use an electronic wheel chair out there. But that’s some people’s idea of utopia.

        • Barcelo

          Might not get shot often, but definitely will get stabbed or hit with a bat real quick. They love to talk about their low rate of being shot, but don’t like to acknowledge their extremely high rate of stabbings. I live in Florida where guns are all over the place. I feel much safer here than when I lived in NYC, where guns are very tightly controlled, so I’d say it’s working just great for me. And the first person to shoot doesn’t always win. It doesn’t happen like you see in the movies. A person usually has to be shot a half dozen times before they stop doing what they’re doing. People don’t really fall down dead after being shot in the arm.

        • PILawyer

          You are right Andrew. In the UK, the weapon of choice for murder is the knife. Mothers Against Knife Violence and the medical association in the UK are working to ban kitchen utensils to prevent the epidemic of knife murders. So, how silly is your comment now? Or do you believe that people are any more or less dead if killed via knife versus gun.

          • MPH

            I’ve read that 80% of people attacked with a knife die, but 80% of shooting victims live. Alas, I can’t find the link. Part of it may be in the definition of “Shooting victim”, as they might include people shot at but missed (I don’t know for sure). Also, what % of stabbing victims are stabbed multiple times, etc.? I’ve only read the claim, and didn’t investigate the links that were claimed to be to the underlying data.

          • Bruce A. Frank

            One of the problems is that in incidents where a criminal attacks with a knife or a rock, it is just a minor violent crime. If the criminal attacks with a knife or rock and the victim is a law abiding citizen with a carry permit who pulls her firearm and shoots to stop the attack, it is classified as a “gun” incident…with little reporting on the fact that the gun stopped the attack.

          • Bruce A. Frank

            I am sure he believes you are making a joke about registering kitchen knives in the UK. You are not!

          • Patricia Tyson

            That was To funny ,And You are right ,But LOL LOL LOL

        • Bruce A. Frank

          We could debate violence in other countries and lethal instrument of choice, but you can research that. More important is your need to research the violent crime rate here in the US. The statistical data will show you that in every state and city where it was made easier for law abiding citizens to obtain and carry firearms, violent crime rates are down. That decline has paralleled the increase in purchase of firearms and the issuance of concealed carry permits.

          The least decline, and usually increases in violent crime, has occurred in the states and cities that have the most restrictive firearms laws. Research continues to show that criminals avoid areas where law abiding citizens are armed.

          When citizens cannot defend themselves, criminals have free rein. Restrictive gun laws impact only law abiding citizens. Criminals carry what ever weapon they want. A knife, a ball bat, a rock, or a piece of pipe bought with no restriction at Home Depot.

          A law abiding citizen who cannot obtain the permit because the local sheriff says he doesn’t have a good enough reason, has no defense against the armed or unarmed criminal. FBI statistics show that more people are killed with hammers, fists, or feet than are killed by guns.

          You should also note that the most heaneous incidents of criminals using guns against innocent victims occur in so called “gun free zones.” Which are places where only the law abiding citizen is unable to defend himself, his family, or friends and neighbors. The criminal carries what ever weapon he wants where ever he wants.

          As you do your research, you should note that in all the places where law abiding citizens obtain the right to carry Dodge City shoot-outs do not take place. Criminals plying their vocation don’t want to take the risk…so they go to a “gun free zone.”

          So I do have to finish with the researched and well proven truism…

  • Dax

    Our schmuck of a President doesn’t need to sign it. It isn’t like he will be reelected. This is the next Presidents, the next REAL Presidents problem, basically.

  • jb80538

    Well we know barry won’t sign it, he’ll grab his veto pen. Maybe Congress can override a veto!

    • Lance_man

      It will never come up for a vote in the Senate. It would assure Hairy Reed of defeat.

      • Bruce A. Frank

        But, but, the NRA rates Harry Ried at nearly 100% pro-gun!

        Amazing how he is able to pull the wool over the eyes even of those who are paying attention. Sure he has backed funding range facilities, but he supports a myriad bills that, not so subtly, infringe on individual gun rights.

  • Steven Wedig

    Perfect win win deal!!

    • Mr. Obvious

      For criminals too.

      • Old Jarhead

        Not in any way will this law affect the illegal acquisition, or for that matter, confiscation of illegally obtained firearms, from know felons.

        I apologize for the picture, I was trying to upload that for my avatar picture, and this won’t let me edit out the picture below.

      • Kyle Meyer

        Tell me how criminals follow law again? As a law abiding firearm owner I don’t want criminals to have guns but if they don’t follow the laws now, what makes you think they will follow any new ones? That thinking makes absolutely no sense. They are criminals for a reason

  • Michael Lawrence

    Brilliant…I’d like to buy Steve Stockton a beer for this one!!!

  • wildman

    Thank You Mr. Stockton

  • Mr. Obvious

    Or you could simply introduce a bill to ban confiscation.

    Why ban registration? Registration will help solve and prevent crimes.

    • Chewbacca

      How? If you’re going to make ignorant statements after drinking kool aid at least try to back those statements. Do you have proof that registration prevents and aides in solving crime? Or do you only get your news from Bobby Costas?

      • Billca

        Do you have proof that registration has actually helped solve more than a few isolated crimes? Please share that if you have it from a credible source.

        Such registration lists are used by police to justify heavy-handed home invasions. Such as the one recently in Texas the police justified a Swat-like raid because they wanted to execute a search warrant against a resident of a house that (a) they knew would not be present and (b) they knew another resident had a firearm. Instead of knocking and serving the warrant on an otherwise law-abiding citizen, they forced entry at gunpoint, terrorizing the citizens within.

        In another recent case, a citizen of a free state was followed and pulled over in another state by state police who demanded to know “where’s your gun?” A search of the car turned up no gun. The “crime” that formed the “probable cause” for the stop? He had a concealed carry permit in his home state.

        In California, state authorities are using their gun registry to cross reference against disqualifying convictions. This could be a laudable goal, however instead of sending a notice to these people to either turn in their gun or provide proof of transfer to another owner (the state requires use of a licensed FFL to sell any gun to another person), they are using police teams to attempt to collect said guns. The bad news is that some of their “targets” are not legally disqualified from owning guns but intimidated into surrendering their property.

      • Brakechute

        But…but…but on TV they can find half a spent casing and in a matter of minutes — thanks to registration — they know who owns the gun, and where the current owner is at the moment. Are you trying to tell me the TV lied?

        • anAmericanByChoice

          Ahahahahahahahah! Thumbs up!

    • Old Jarhead

      There are a number of states that have implemented registration of firearms. To my knowledge, after billions of dollars spent, not a single crime has ever been solved because of the registration lists. Not a single crime. If I am wrong, please linked the report that credits the crime being solved because of the registry.
      Registration lists HAVE been used, on numerous occasions, right here in the USA, for states to confiscate firearms which are not approved of by politicians who fear legally armed citizens.

    • disapointdvet

      yes, because those criminals are just lining up to register their illegally (or legally) obtained firearms.

      • Francie26

        Why yes. And several criminals regularly show up at police stations voluntarily to check the latest gun control legislation. They just wanna’ be on the safe side, ya’ know?!!

    • anAmericanByChoice

      Mr. Obvious, your are, erh… obviously ignorant!… Whenever did registration help solve or prevent crimes? Registration is the first step towards confiscation, period. Nothing less, nothing more. A little history may obviously help, but getting informed and educating yourself is obviously the least, and last, of your concerns.

    • jimpeel

      The Canadians have now shelved their registry program because it did nothing but waste money that could have been used for other crime fighting measures. C-68 was a joke from the outset in 1993 and was promised to cost only several million dollars. It topped $1,000,000,000 by 2004 and has topped $2,000,000,000. Not a single crime was solved through the registry and the RCMP has wanted it quashed since its inception once the true costs were revealed.

      Do some research and you will find out I am correct. Until then, let’s just call you “Mr. Oblivious.”

      Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:

      We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.”

    • Frank W Brown

      You are wrong, registration has ALWAYS led to confiscation in history, bone up on reality!

  • Patricia Tyson

    Well Lets See You takes the bait’LOL

  • liberalssuck

    This is awesome!!

  • The Abstract

    The problem lies in that the sycophantic MSM (in lock step with their liberal masters) will STILL call anyone who knows the truth about illegal confiscation of firearms “paranoid.”

  • belladonnacotton

    I wish I was on that commitee.

  • Billca

    Once it gets to the Senate, it will die a death of neglect. If it even comes out of committee, Harry Reid won’t schedule it for a vote because there will suddenly be “more pressing matters” for Congress to vote on.

  • thewizardofaz

    The problems I have with this are threefold. 1. The second amendment already forbids the infringement on the citizenry to bear arms. 2. The governments at both state and federal levels IGNORE the second amendment. 3. What makes you think another law will be respected and followed?

    • anAmericanByChoice

      Most dumb politicians today think the Constitution and BoR are subject to interpretation and twist it around as they please! This bill would spell it out for them!?… There would be no place for interpretation!

    • Francie26

      It doesn’t sound to me like it was written so much to create another law to be “followed,” but rather, to create a law designed to sort the congressional and senatorial “wheat from the chaff,” to sort out the real 2nd Amendment rights’ “gun supporters” from its “gun grabbers.” I think its a piece of genius.

  • Keith Gilbert

    I love a good trap…and this is a great trap. However, if we just follow the US Constitution and its glorious Bill Of Rights…the 2nd Amendment doesn’t allow the government to make any kind of firearm illegal…allowing this to happen in the past is what has laid the groundwork for our present troubles and the existence of a tyrannical bureaucracy in the form of the ATF, et al.

    • Zaphod Smith

      Yep.. there should have been a revolution in 1934. (National Firearms Act) and 1913 too, when congress shurked it’s responsibility to control the US currency, and gave it over to a central bank. It’s been all down hill every since.

  • Varian Wrynn

    Quoting “…the Democrats become the party that is pro-gun registration and confiscation…”
    We already know this. Every anti-gun bill introduced was introduced by democrats. Democrats have a long history of gun-grabbing – look at the third word of the official name of the Party that ran Germany in the 1930’s (hint: It begins with a “D” and rhymes with “emocrat”) who registered guns, then confiscated them, then killed over 13 million of their own citizens. BTW – the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted by . . . wait for it . . . Democrats! (Democrat House and democrat Senate)

  • anAmericanByChoice

    Thumbs UP for a bill that was carefully thought out! Yep!, like Scott says, pure genius, and many others should follow this example!

  • steve wieters

    Great Bill. Let’s get it going wilt massive support.

  • AlThompson

    No chance for doublespeak here! But hey, how many of the devious bastards do you imagine will clock in with “present but not voting”?

  • WeThePeopleCan

    HR4380 is a Manufacturing Enhancement bill introduced in 2009/2010, has nothing to do with firearm registration!

    • Zaphod Smith

      113th Congress not the 111th Congress.. 113 – Guns… 111 – Manufacturing.

  • slamradio

    gorgeous, bravo!

  • Geoffry K

    It will pass the House, but never see a vote in the Senate due to “Dirty” Harry Reid.

  • Mike

    Isn’t “shall not be infringed” enough? Amazing that as a society we have have to make laws supporting the known laws of the land…

    • Zaphod Smith

      The problem is, they (the government) try and interpret the Constitution instead of just following it.. There is a reason that all the founding documents are in plain English and not in legal speak..

    • Saca J. Weeda

      If it were enough we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  • jayray78

    A brilliant move by Stockman that is likely to be subverted by his peers and traded into non-existence for the promise of a future concession or cooperation on another issue, which in turn will never see the light of day.

  • Great strategy… More things like this need to be done in order to win American’s against the destructive policies of the Liberal Democrats. The thing is, will they find a way to bury it or set it aside until after the election – which they will try like hell to do!

  • bdgshv

    This bill is pure genius and about time. demorcrats must be crapping in their pants right about now….LOVE IT.

  • betspotter

    Now, if Boehner and his misguided wussie leadership will just sit down, shut up and let this pass, we’ll be going in the right direction.