Thanks to the Democratic victory in November and what advocates say is a new national attitude regarding the pervasiveness of firearms in America, 20 gun-related bills and resolutions have been introduced in the 116th Congress so far this year, including 13 in the House of Representatives.
Another was to be added Wednesday by Democratic Rep. Anthony Brown of Maryland and dozens of co-sponsors. It would raise the minimum age to buy semi-automatic assault-style weapons from 18 to 21. Federal statute already prohibits sales of handguns to anyone under 21. Four states—Washington, Illinois, Florida, and Vermont—already set the age limit for assault-style weapons at 21, and seven others, including California and New York, ban sales of such weapons to anyone. The National Rifle Association is suing Florida over its law.
Brown brought the same legislation last year in the wake of the slaughter of 17 students and staffers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The murderer was 18 when he legally bought the semi-automatic assault-style rifle used in the slayings. Brown’s bill failed to pass the Republican-dominated House in 2018, but now Democrats have the majority. Three Republicans have joined as co-sponsors—Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Brian Mast of Florida, and Peter King of New York.
The bill includes exemptions for active-duty military personnel and some police officers:
Last March, Trump told a group of lawmakers in a meeting that aired live on cable news that he supported raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons to 21.
“It doesn’t make sense that I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun, but I can get this weapon at 18,” Trump said then. The remark stunned Capitol Hill. Within weeks, however, Trump reversed his position after a high-profile meeting with the National Rifle Association.
Chances are slim that such a bill would be passed—or even considered—in the Senate, where the Republicans have a 53-47 majority over Democrats and Democratic-caucusing independents. And, of course, the squatter in the Oval Office would veto it if it did. But as in the case of a broad range of bills being introduced in the House this year, Brown’s and other gun proposals are seen as providing legislative ammunition to help spur voters to give Democrats the Senate majority and the White House in the 2020 election, and thus provide them the political clout to actually turn those bills into law. In other words, this is messaging legislation.
Another assault-style weapon-related bill—S. 66, introduced this month by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California—would reinstate the 1994 federal ban on such firearms. That ban expired in 2004. In 2013, Feinstein introduced a bill that would have reinstated it in the wake of the murder with such a weapon of 20 elementary schoolchildren and six staff in Newtown, Connecticut. That bill went down in a 40-60 vote, with 15 Democrats opposed. Several are still in the Senate, and those who aren’t have mostly been replaced by Republicans.
In addition to Brown’s and Feinstein’s bills, Rep. Mike Thompson of California— who chairs the Democratic “gun violence prevention task force”—has introduced H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would mandate background checks for almost all gun sales, private or commercial, at gun stores, gun shows, or between individuals, with exceptions for transfers between family members.
With 225 co-sponsors, Thompson’s legislation already has enough supporters to pass the House.
Universal background checks are one of the changes vast majorities of Americans support. This includes gun owners and even the majority of members of the NRA, the gun lobby that has been a driving force in blocking even the mildest new restrictions. In 2013, for example, a modest compromise background law didn’t survive in the Senate despite prodigious efforts to make it appealing to moderates.
However, the political fear the NRA has been able to instill in many elected officials has weakened in the past year, in part because of the aggressive and poignant student activism of several Parkland survivors, and also because of the organization’s alleged links to Russian money in support of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Moreover, the NRA’s financing took a big hit in 2017 indicating it doesn’t have the support it once boasted. Thompson, however, is wary. He told Politico: “I think more and more people are viewing the NRA with more cynicism and suspicion. But let’s not kid ourselves, they continue to have a very, very strong grip on far too many Democrats.”
One key element of the NRA’s attack on universal background checks is its claims these will lead to gun confiscation, because they will mean the creation of a registry of all firearms:
Such a registry, they argue, might eventually lead to the federal government taking away citizens' guns. It’s the thread that runs through virtually every argument made by gun-rights groups — the government first wants to know whether you have a gun so it can take it away from you someday — and continues to mobilize their activists in the never-ending struggle over gun laws.
"Universal background checks has always been a red herring," said Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), a key NRA ally in the House. "It's something that sounds very commonsense and probably polls very well, but there's not a single commercial gun transaction in America that doesn't have a background check."
Gun-restriction advocates dispute that claim, estimating that roughly 20 percent of gun sales don't include background checks.
Thompson’s bill is already in the hands of the House Judiciary Committee now chaired by Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who has vowed to get the bill to the floor of the House “very quickly.” That would probably mean late February or early March.