Democrats to Vote on 6 Gun Controls That Wouldn’t Have Prevented Uvalde Attack

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee will hold a vote on a gun control package Thursday which includes six gun control measures that would not have prevented the Uvalde attack.

Punchbowl News reports that the package contains eight gun controls. Six of those gun controls would not have prevented the Uvalde attack.

Those six include background checks for “ghost guns,” gun storage requirements for homes with minors present, additional penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchases, a bump stock ban, and a requirement that existing bump stocks be registered under the auspices of the National Firearms Act.

The measures change the definition of “ghost guns,” so that a background check on such guns would be required going forward.

The “Protecting Our Kids Act” contains a ban on bump stocks, although a bump stock ban was put in place by the Department of Justice in 2019.

The language of the bump stock ban was announced by the DOJ in December 2018, and owners of those firearm accessories were given 90 days to turn them in. The ban became effective on March 26, 2019, and remains in effect today.

In addition to the six gun controls that would not have prevented Uvalde, the Democrats are pushing a “high capacity” magazine ban. This ban would not prevent attacks either.

On December 30, 2012, a review board that studied the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shooting found that a ban on “high capacity” magazines would have had a negligible impact on the outcome of the attack. The review panel said making the attacker use ten-round magazines instead of mags that hold 15 rounds “would have not made that much difference in the incident.”

And here is that staircase on gun control, one step at a time.

From 1976.

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.(Now the Brady Center)

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — TOTALLY ILLEGAL.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”(Now rifles)

-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview

HCI, around 1984, suddenly made a grab for the semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and missed But they showed their hand. As a result all gun owners know we are always up against a stacked deck.

Thanks for the history. They have been screaming for gun control and enacting incrementally since 1968.

Bill Clinton took a beating in 1994 because of the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban. He told them to knock it off for the remainder of his term in office.

Now that they run elections, it’s just another poison pill for us to swallow.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.