How to combat mass shootings and what we can do about them.
Here’s an overview of some gun reform bills currently in Congress. I encourage you to educate yourself about these bills and the people sponsoring them and then call your representatives so that your voice can be heard. You can also take action through Civic Action Network.
These bills take on various points of views regarding gun reform, and cover a wide variety of topics, from background checks and the purchasing process to loopholes that currently enable criminals to acquire firearms illegally.
S.2095 — Assault Weapons Ban of 2017
This bill seeks to ban a wide range of weapons that may be classified as assault weapons by name, which includes the AR-15. It also seeks to ban any magazine that has the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds or could be easily converted/altered to hold more than 10 rounds.
Those in favor of this bill believe that such weapons and magazine should be banned completely. Those who may oppose this bill include people who feel this ban would infringe upon second amendment rights.
Under this bill, there is a “grandfather” clause that enables those who already own these weapons to keep them, though they must be stored properly and securely. An owner of a firearm that becomes illegal under this bill will not be allowed to loan their firearm to another person or sell their firearm unless the transaction is processed by an authorized dealer.
Senator Feinstein, who sponsors the bill, stated: “Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”
Learn more here.
H.R.4240 — Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2017
This bill will give states additional resources to help them improve the background check system (NICS) that monitors civilian gun purchases. This bill also supports the closure of loopholes found for firearm sales, including gun show, internet, and classified ad loopholes.
Those who may not support this bill may feel that expanding the NICS system will bureaucratize the firearm purchasing process and may impede individuals who have defensive gun use charges from obtaining a handgun. Those who may oppose this bill may also do so because they feel it infringes upon second amendment rights.
One loophole this bill works to close is the private seller loophole. Federal law currently requires a federally licensed dealer to obtain a background check on anyone purchasing a firearm prior to the sale. A private seller is not required to do so. However, this bill would enable the transfer of firearms between spouses and some family members without the need for a background check.
A person who attempts to sell or transfer a firearm in violation of this act could be fined or imprisoned for up to 15 years. If enacted, within 180 days of becoming law, this bill will lead to the publication of all NICS statistics and make them publicly available online.
Learn more here.
S.1212 — Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017
This bill would develop a court process where a family member could petition a court to enact a temporary “gun prevention order” by which law enforcement would be granted the authority to temporarily take the weapons of an individual who is believed to be suffering from mental illness or is in another way a threat to themselves/others.
Those who oppose this bill likely feel that any law restricting or seizing weapons from an individual may infringe upon second amendment rights.
In addition to this bill granting family members the ability to petition the court for a gun prevention order, a law enforcement officer would also be able to do the same against any individual they feel may pose a threat to themselves or others. Law enforcement would be forced to abide by certain legal requirements during the seize and while holding the weapons.
Anyone who has their firearms seized can hold a hearing within 30 days to determine if the individual is “subject to possess, own, purchase, or receive firearms.” The court will determine if the standard of proof has been met. If not, the firearms will be returned to the individual.
Learn more here.
H.R.34 — Safe Students Act
This controversial bill would repeal gun-free school zones and enable teachers, students, and other staff to carry legal weapons onto school property. This act would directly repeal the 1990 GFSZA, Gun-Free School Zones Act, which made it unlawful for any individual to possess a firearm in a school zone.
Those in favor of this bill feel that allowing teachers and students to arm themselves, within the constraints of the law, would make schools safer. Those who oppose this bill feel that school zones should continue to be gun free so that weapons (both legal and illegal) can be more easily restricted and controlled on campuses.
Congressman Massie, who is in favor of the bill, stated: “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments.”
“Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals … Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.”
Those in favor of this bill are also supportive of it because the original GFSZA of 1995 was found to be unconstitutional. The bill was amended in 1996, as required by the Supreme Court, but the amended act has not been reviewed for constitutionality.
Some version of this bill has been introduced to Congress every year since 2007 but has consistently failed to gain enough support due to widespread opposition against guns on school campuses.
Learn more here.
H.R.3464 / S.1923 — Background Check Completion Act of 2017
Those in favor of this bill feel that no firearm should be sold unless a background check is fully completed prior to the transaction. This bill would close the “3-day loophole” where an individual can buy a firearm any time within a 72-hour period following a background check initiation. By doing so, it means no individual will be able to purchase a gun until a background check is fully initiated.
Those who oppose this bill are in agreement with the current system that is in place for handling a background check that takes more than 72 hours to complete. They may feel that waiving the 3-day rule would give room for background checks to take substantially longer than they presently due, which may impede a citizen from legally purchasing a firearm.
Under current law, any person who buys a firearm after 72 hours with their background check incomplete is still subject to the laws regarding firearm possession. If, after buying a firearm, the background check is completed and agencies find they were not legally allowed to purchase the weapon, ATF is contacted and the weapon will be confiscated.
With this bill, no one would be capable of purchasing a firearm until a background check is fully completed and passed.
Learn more here.
H.R.4573 — Gun Violence Research Act of 2017
While the Dickey Amendment prohibits government funding for gun control, this bill would enable government funding for research on gun violence.
The Dickey Amendment (1996) prohibits the use of federal funds to promote or advocate for gun control. However, the Gun Violence Research Act of 2017 would clarify that the Dickey Amendment does not prohibit funding for research on mental health, gun violence, and the intersections of these two topics.
The Gun Violence Research Act of 2017 would also call on Congress to generate two reports, one on the effect of violence on public healthier and the other on how gun violence affects mental health in minority communities.
Originally, the Dickey Amendment was added as a rider to a spending bill in an effort to stop federal funds from being used to advocate against the second amendment.
Jay Dickey, the Republican Congressman who originally sponsored the Dickey Amendment, said in 2012 that researchers should be able to acquire federal funding to research gun violence. He clarified that the Dickey Amendment was only intended to end political gun control advocacy.
Learn more here.
Let Your Voice Be Heard
Government is supposed to work for the people. As a constituent living in the United States, you should feel encouraged to reach out to your congressman for issues that matter to you or use Civic Action Network to contact your representatives so that your opinion can be heard.