Greetings to everyone from Washington, DC, and Capitol Hill where I have had the humble honor to return. It was truly a blessing to come back and step onto the floor of the US House of Representatives and see former colleagues, and the new batch of constitutional conservative fighters.
My specific mission was to meet, primarily, with members of the House Second Amendment Caucus and discuss several critical pieces of legislation for legal, law-abiding gun owners. If you missed it, I put out a little video summary from outside the doors of the office from whence I represented the people of Florida’s 22nd Congressional district.
The first piece of legislation is HR 38, National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry License Holders, authored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC). This should make sense to any American. Imagine a state-issued driver’s license only valid and accepted in the state of issue? In other words, you could not legally drive a vehicle into another state unless that state had an agreement with your issuing state. That is the issue with restrictions on concealed carry license holders, or any legal law-abiding gun owner. One risks the possibility of facing a felony crime. If you think this is folly, well, ask the single black mom of two boys, Shaneen Allen of Philadelphia, who was arrested in New Jersey for having her legally owned firearm in her car in 2014. Miss Allen was facing three years on a felony charge because New Jersey did not recognize her legal carry ownership. The case was eventually dismissed because of a huge national uproar, and in 2015 Gov. Christie did pardon Miss Allen. Did you read what I just wrote? Yes, a single black mom of two, a legal gun owner, was arrested on a felony charge and had to be pardoned. Shaneen, when stopped in a traffic violation, admitted to the officer that she had a firearm in her vehicle.
This is why we need national reciprocity for concealed carry license holders, as well as ensuring the Second Amendment is firmly recognized as the law of the land.
The second piece of legislation is HR 53, Firearms Industry Non-Discrimination (FIND) Act, authored by Rep. Lieutenant General (USMC, Ret) Jack Bergman (R-Mich). If you recall Operation Chokepoint in the Obama administration led by his henchman Attorney General Eric Holder, the intent was to undermine financial services and support to firearms manufacturers and federal firearms licensed (FFL) dealers. The objective was to choke off loans and payment services to the firearms industry, yet another way to “infringe upon” the Second Amendment in this Republic. The major point was that the industry was guilty of nothing more than ensuring Americans could legally purchase firearms. Mind you, these are American companies, manufacturers, and small businesses. This legislation would prevent this ideological targeting of the firearms industry. Imagine how gun manufacturers are held responsible, liable, and open to lawsuits because someone uses their product criminally. Well, when was the last time you saw an alcoholic beverage manufacturer held liable for DUIs? Or how about the automobile industry being held liable for vehicular homicides?
The progressive socialist leftists are no different from the British Army on April 19, 1775, who had orders to destroy a weapons and armaments factory in Concord, Massachusetts.
The third piece of legislation is HR 95, Hearing Protection Act, authored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). This legislation would end the absurd practice of the federal government, meaning ATF, treating firearms suppressors as a weapon itself and forcing legal, law-abiding Americans to apply for an ATF tax stamp. As I shared previously regarding my purchase of a fully suppressed custom-made 9mm carbine rifle, I had to additionally provide fingerprints, photos, and $200 . . . and a near-year wait. This is all due to my desire to protect my own hearing. Why does the federal government need to get involved in the business of my hearing protection? In Europe, it is customary for semi-automatic weapons to have suppressors. This is yet another unconstitutional federal tax and means to infringe upon our Second Amendment right. Basically what the federal government is saying is that will regulate what type of accessories one can have on their own weapon, which they have acquired legally, and gone through a background check, Form 4473. Why does a certain accessory require an additional check? Heck, you can’t use a suppressor as a weapon.
The fourth piece of legislation directly relates to the federal government, ATF, Biden administration taking unconstitutional actions targeting a weapon accessory. There will be a House Joint Resolution of Disapproval, authored by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga), who is an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) and Rep. Hudson (R-NC), to stop Biden’s pistol brace rule. The purpose of the HJR, which is sponsored in the US Senate by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), is to reverse the unconstitutional rule issued by the ATF on January 13, 2023 which reclassifies millions of commonly owned pistol braced firearms as short-barrel rifles (SBRs) and shotguns requiring “registration” under the National Firearms Act of 1934, an act which desperately needs revision, review, and updating, if not flat out repeal. I must ask, what is the difference between a pistol-braced firearm and a SBR? Actually, nothing. Nothing about the function of the weapon changes, and these braces were originally created for ease of firing for those with certain disabilities, mainly our veterans. This unconstitutional rule has a two-part intent: to create a gun registry – illegal — and turn millions of Americans into felons overnight, well, in 120 days.
Your call to action is to contact your member of Congress, both House and Senate, and tell them you want these four pieces of legislation passed. You may be asking, how many Democrats have signed onto these pieces of legislation? From what I was told, only one, a former Marine Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine). While walking through the halls of Rayburn House Office Building (HOB) I ran into Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL). Since we knew each other, we stopped and spoke. She asked me how I was doing and what brought me to Capitol Hill. I explained that I was there to advocate for several pieces of legislation supporting 2nd Amendment rights. Rep. Frankel, in front of others with me, responded, “I am not for any of that gun stuff.” My response was simple: you don’t have to be, just don’t infringe upon my right to protect myself . . . and you.
Never forget, our Founding Fathers were very prescient and realized that an armed individual is a citizen . . . and a disarmed individual is a subject. Progressives, socialists, Marxists, statists, tyrants, and communists want subjects.
Steadfast and Loyal!