President Joe Biden’s remaining tenure as commander and chief is now down to just a few weeks, which means there’s not much time for him to do anything else. Considering his track record over the last four years, that’s probably a good thing.
Especially as he’s still calling for gun control in the wake of tragedies, all while ignoring how he pardoned his own son for gun crimes.
Regardless, just because he doesn’t have a lot of time to do anything doesn’t mean there’s no time. Biden, or someone on his staff, are still doing whatever they can to screw with our right to keep and bear arms.
Regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a DOJ press release on December 4 reads:
“Following the language of the BSCA, the Firearm Handlers Rule proposes that federal firearm licensees (FFLs), such as gun stores, be allowed to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to voluntarily conduct employment background checks for certain employees. Current NICS regulations prohibit FFLs from initiating background checks for any purpose other than the transfer of firearms. Under the Firearm Handlers NPRM, FFLs will be permitted to request NICS background checks for current or prospective employees who may handle firearms, ammunition, or related materials. The Firearm Handlers Rule NPRM details the scope of employees eligible for background checks, as well as new NICS statuses proposed for such checks.”
I’ve touched on this in the past, but I’m still at a loss for how much this is actually needed.
While NICS can’t be used for background checks beyond those required for gun purchases, I’d be surprised to find out that gun stores aren’t getting background checks via other means.
After all, I’ve never worked at a gun store but I’ve had employers do background checks more than once.
Yet that’s not the big issue here. Let’s get into what’s the real problem.
“The second NPRM, known as the Under-21 Rule, would codify enhanced NICS background check procedures for prospective firearm purchasers under 21 years of age, among other changes. Under the BSCA, NICS is required to conduct enhanced background checks for such under-21 purchasers, by contacting certain state and local entities to determine if a juvenile record, such as a criminal conviction or mental health record, may disqualify the purchaser from possessing a firearm. The FBI began performing these enhanced checks in late 2022 and has denied nearly 1,000 transactions solely because of enhanced outreach.”
The second proposed rule, AG Order No. 6100-2024, would require enhanced background checks on adults under 21 who wish to purchase a firearm, allowing the FBI to contact local and state organizations to inquire about juvenile criminal and mental health records. Note these agencies, however, are not required to respond to such communications, some of which are explicitly prohibited due to state law.
Yes, this appears to just be the implementation of something mandated in the BSCA, but I do find it interesting that no one is required to actually reply to the FBI’s attempt at an enhanced background check.
In other words, if states think this is stupid, they can just pass a law that such entities can’t share that information with federal authorities.
But there’s a bigger issue here, at least in my eyes, and that’s the continued effort to treat lawful adults under the age of 21 differently simply because they’re under 21.
If you’re saying they’re too young to be trusted with their full gun rights, then why are they being trusted with anything? Why say they’re adults when you’re not treating them like adults? At 18, someone can make all kinds of life-altering decisions, including living alone. This push to restrict their ability to defend themselves, though, leaves them defenseless. It also suggests they’re really not capable of making sound decisions, so why are they allowed to vote?
I have doubts that treating these adults differently is constitutional at all, and I’m not even talking about the Second Amendment. This seems like unequal protection before the law to me.
We’ll have to see where the legal battles go, though.
Read the full article here
