House GOP Wants Johnson to Oppose Reauthorization of Gun Law

( – Not all laws passed by Congress are meant to be permanent additions to the United States Code (USC) — there are numerous examples of those that have a “sunset clause” included. This allows future review of the legislation to include changes in things such as society and technology, a controversial piece of legislation will expire on March 8 unless the House of Representatives agrees to a measure already passed through the Senate.

Expansion Via the Pen

The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 underwent this process in 1998, 2003, and 2013, and all had a future sunset date included within them. However, President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrats tried to hide an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) making it permanent and apparently adding in a brand-new rule written by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and signed by Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland.

On February 1, a group of 74 Republican representatives sent a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), urging him to vigorously oppose the Senate’s measure, the most practical way for him to do that would be to use his discretionary ability to simply not bring it to the floor. Lawmakers point out that the original law required all firearms to contain a sufficient amount of stainless steel to set off the metal detectors that were available in 1988.

The representatives argue technology has rendered moot the “archaic law” since modern scanners and x-ray machines used “from your local airport to the Smithsonian Institute are more than capable of detecting objects that do not contain metal.” They note that the ATF rule is still wending its way through the judicial system where the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed to the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred, saying the standard for the court order was justified because the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on the merits because the Final Rule is contrary to law.”

Garland and the ATF used these rule changes — neither debated in nor approved by Congress — to massively expand their definition of “firearms” and declared outright that it was an attempt to sidestep judicial oversight. Another example of what one could arguably call Woke-ism, and another attempt to disarm the American populace, can be found in what is NOT included in the final rule published in the Federal Register.

A search of the ATF’s purported analysis of comments on the rule when it was still in its proposed stage for the term “attorneys general” turned up three occurrences, all in support. However, there did not seem to be any reference to a letter sent in that opposed its creation.

The opposition letter went out under the seals of Attorneys General Patrick Morrissey of West Virginia and Mark Brnovich of Arizona — 18 other signatories joined them. Although they made several different arguments as to why the proposed changes should not be finalized, one sentence sums it up nicely. They wrote, “By allowing ATF to decide for itself which firearms it will regulate, unconstrained by Congress’s guidance, the proposed rule is unconstitutional” [emphasis added].

Copyright 2024,