WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 17: House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) (C) speaks a news conference about the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center July 17, 2018 in Washington, DC. Past and present members of the committee were very critical of U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks about Russia's work to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

One of the many Democratic candidates for the 2020 election has released his plans on gun control if he were to win the primary nomination and the presidential election. His plans are very much like his comrades on the democratic side of the table in they want sweeping background checks, a national registry and to take away peripheral items for firearms that arguably do not make a weapon deadlier. Mr. Swalwell of California adds his own twist on to these plans by promising a Mandatory buyback for bump-stocks, Silencers, and any magazine that contains more then 10 rounds, and prevent anyone from possessing over 200 rounds of ammunition.

None of this is constitutionally sound let me remind you, all of these things do not increase the kill potential of a weapon or make it operate in a way someone with $20 and an internet connection couldn’t whip up at home. A National registry is the most concerning of all his measures as this will create a list of all gun owners and what they are in possession of allowing the government to keep tabs on those they fear the most, the everyday armed citizen. Many aspects of Mr. Swalwell’s plan is not constitutional, but that has never stopped the democratic party before when it comes to over reaching on gun control, So lets talk about each ideal he has and where it goes wrong.

Mr. Swalwell outlines in his plan that would he win, he would put into effect Background checks for any and all firearm purchases and ammunition purchases, now lets look at this as it is today, We already require background checks on firearm purchases from a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) but not on one time purchases from a private seller. Mr. Swalwell also would like to force you to pass a background check to purchase ammunition for the gun you already have passed a background check to obtain, seems kind of redundant doesn’t it. This will only achieve one goal and that is make things more difficult for law abiding fire arm owners all while criminals go unaffected by these law changes like usual.

Next Mr. Swalwell would like to make it so that law abiding gun owners must acquire Liability insurance before being allowed to purchase, trade or receive a firearm as a gift, Not only is this ridiculous but its also an impediment on our 2nd amendment as it would prevent an individual from being able to own a firearm if they wish to waive this insurance. Now in my opinion this sort of insurance would be a great idea to have in any case where you are forced to draw and use your firearm, but to force it upon an unwilling individual is extremely concerning as this would then prevent them from having access to the rights they are given by being a citizen of this country if they choose to not obtain and pay for this insurance.

One of Mr. Swalwell’s plan is already in effect but would be lessens by his plan, He proposed a 48 Hr. “cool down” period between firearm purchase and receiving said weapon from a FFL after purchase. Several States already have these waiting periods in effect but are actually longer them what is proposed so now the question is will the Federal Government force their 48 Hr. period on other states or allow local governments to continue with their already set limits. Just to give you an idea of how drastic the changes are here are a few examples:

California – 10 days on all purchases

District of Columbia – 10 days on all purchases

Florida – 3 days or the time it takes to complete a background check, which ever happens first

Hawaii – 14 days on all purchases

Illinois – 3 days for all purchases

Pennsylvania – 1 day period on long gun, 3 Day period on handgun purchases

Rhode Island – 7 days on all purchases

Sourced from Giffords Law Center

So as you can see several states would lengthen the period on some gun purchases while other would be shortened, now whether this is intentional or not that is not clear, but this is still concerning as in the cases where it changes the waiting period it is overreach by our Federal Government to tell a state what its policies and or laws should be. One other concern is would these periods be levied on ammunition purchases as well or not, well that is to be determined yet. This plan would also override most states limits and impose a 30 day wait period in the case of purchasing handguns allowing civilians from only being able to obtain said handguns once every 30 days, again this is unconstitutional and limits your access to your 2nd amendment rights. The only thing being achieved in these 30 days is limiting a civilian from obtaining a second firearm that they wish to purchase, and at the same time have no effect on illegal weapon sales.

This plan has many concerning aspects in it but before we get to the meat and potatoes of his plan lets look at another limitation that falls under the category of unnecessary. Eliminating the sale of ammunition online is another one of the key notes of this plan and honestly this one is probably the least concerning as I personally have never ordered live ammunition online but this could be interpreted different ways and lets have a look at that, This could be applied potentially to the sale of powder and brass required to press your own ammunition which i personally take part in.

By limiting these items you could effectively require all purchases to be made in a store where ammunition would quickly become a hard to find commodity due to the demand and would allow the above mention background check on ammo to be completed. This also comes inline with another aspect of the plan where it would limit the amount of ammo you are allowed to stockpile, This plan would introduce a 200 round limit on any caliber or gauge. Now I do not know about you but 200 rounds is nothing, I can spend a day at the range and shoot 3 times that amount easily. This all seems to simply be a way to minimize and contain the public in a ways so that should the government become tyrannical it would limit the public’s ability to rise up and fight effectively.

Mr. Swalwell did mention in his plan the ban and buyback of all butt-stocks, suppressors, and magazines exceeding 10 rounds, and any weapons he deems to fall under the category of “Assault Weapon” which is well know this is not a legal or recognized categorization of weapons, but this has been discussed extensively in other publications so we wont spend any time debunking this lunacy.

Now, The meat and potatoes, the bit you’ve hopefully stuck around for as now we will tackle the most concerning and intricate parts of his plan. In Mr. Swalwell’s plan there are two things that are dangerous should they be put into effect; Ensuring teachers are disarmed in schools, and Repealing the Protection for Lawful Commerce Act. I do not think it has to be explained how dangerous ensuring teachers are disarmed can be, but I find it still needs to be done, For example lets just look at the Sandy Hook shooting, A student opened fire on his classmates in the school killing 26 people, 20 students and 6 staff members.

As many of us are familiar with this shooting its well known the incident was made worse by the cowardly act of a onsite resource officer and his refusal to confront the shooter. Had a teacher in that school been armed and trained they could have potentially stopped the shooter much sooner limiting the loss of life, But yet Mr. Swalwell would rather our nation’s children, wives, and husbands be gunned down rather then to allow a properly trained adult to step in and stop these sort of shootings. It is nothing but disgusting to see something like this proposed as gun free zones are already an issue i could go on for days about but won’t. I think it goes beyond saying that we need a serious look at the way we protect students and faculty at our schools but by making it harder for these exact people to defend themselves or others is definitely not the way to go.

Finally we are onto the last aspect of the plan and is one that is just so insane its hard to comprehend why its even proposed. Repealing the PLCAA,also known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is so asinine that its hard to imagine what brought this idea about for Mr. Swalwell. For those unfamiliar with this act it prevents Manufacturers and Dealers of firearms from being held accountable for any crimes committed with a weapon they provided. In essence this is along the same line as spoons made me fat so I am suing the maker of said spoon, not only is this thought process crazy but it is entirely dependent on pointing blame at those least guilty of the crime committed.

The only thing this would result in would be allowing the federal government and victims of crimes committed with firearms to go after and sue anyone along the line of obtaining the fire arm used. This is extremely unethical as it would allow innocents to pay for the actions of the criminal. Proposing such a dangerous thing could easily deter people from being involved in the sale of firearms hurting the market and hurting your 2nd amendment rights.

In closing this plan is not only crazy but in many cases unconstitutional and damaging to the 2nd amendment, so if you live in California where Mr. Eric Swalwell will be running in the primary make sure you get out there and let your voices be heard in 2020 to stop this lunacy from ever reaching the floor of the House.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here