A New Gun Law Reflects the Worst Instincts of Both Parties
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act increases the penalties for violating arbitrary firearm bans.

Until last month, someone with a felony record who obtained a gun was committing a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Now he is committing two federal crimes, each punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Contrary to what you may have read or heard, the story of how that happened is not an inspiring example of bipartisan cooperation to protect public safety. It is a dispiriting illustration of how the worst instincts of both major parties combine to produce policies that are neither just nor sensible.
Republicans like to look tough on crime but tend to be leery of gun control. Democrats, by contrast, are enthusiastic about gun control but tend to be leery of draconian criminal penalties that contribute to mass incarceration and have a disproportionate racial impact.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and passed the House by a vote of 230 to 190, offered something to both sides. Republicans got tougher sentences, Democrats got more gun control, and both got to pretend they were doing something to prevent mass shootings.
Among other things, the law expands background-check requirements for gun buyers younger than 21, widens the categories of people who are not allowed to buy firearms, and provides federal funding for states with "red flag" laws, which authorize court orders prohibiting gun possession by people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others. Those provisions are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on mass shootings, but they will cancel the gun rights of adults based on juvenile records and subsidize state laws that suspend those rights without due process.
The law also doubles down on the longstanding prohibition of gun possession by people who have been convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year of incarceration. That rule applies no matter how old the conviction is and regardless of whether the crime involved violence.
Violating this gun ban previously was a felony with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act raises the maximum sentence to 15 years and prescribes the same penalties for "trafficking in firearms," which is defined broadly enough to include receipt of a gun by someone who is legally disqualified from owning one.
The latter provision covers not only people with felony records but also cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana; anyone who has ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, whether or not he was deemed a threat to others; and other categories of people who have never done anything to indicate that they are dangerous. Since receiving a gun is a felony for them, it also qualifies as "trafficking in firearms" and can send them to prison for both offenses if they are caught.
In fiscal year 2021, according to a recent report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 89 percent of federal firearm offenses involved illegal possession, often without aggravating circumstances or a history of violence. Fifty-five percent of those defendants were African Americans, who account for about 14 percent of the U.S. population.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which thinks the right to keep and bear arms is a figment of the Supreme Court's imagination, recognizes that "the categories of people that federal law currently prohibits from possessing or purchasing a gun are overbroad, not reasonably related to the state's interest in public safety, and raise significant equal protection and due process concerns." As an appeals court judge, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett went even further, arguing that the "wildly overinclusive" gun ban for people with felony records violates the Second Amendment.
Undeterred by such criticism, Republicans who claim to support the Second Amendment voted not only to continue punishing people for exercising the rights it guarantees but to increase the penalties they face. So did Democrats, despite their avowed concern about excessively severe sentences and racial disparities.
This is what bipartisan compromise means for members of Congress: I will compromise my principles if you compromise yours.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not that I like the nra, because they are tools that don't care about gun rights, but we can eliminate about 98% of gun crimes by making all gun owners active in the nra
Just change the name to the National Rifle Militia.
Or just get rid of the left.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-16) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
I’m not likely to be liked here but I’m all in on more gun Crimes be sentenced for more time in jail. It’s really not hard to avoid prison. Don’t do stupid stuff and do smart stuff all the time. Discipline and self control. I would like double time for a gun crime. Use a gun and that doubles your time.
I think you may have missed the finer point of the article.
I’m kicking myself I didn’t post this article as my parody of what Reason would post next re: 2A
"This is what bipartisan compromise means for members of Congress: I will compromise my principles if you compromise yours."
Assumes facts not in evidence (that most members of either party have principles).
Well, they're most all principally adopting other people's principles as their own. It actually kinda is their job.
"I will compromise the principles of the people who elected me, which I pretended to share in order to get elected"
"Republicans like to look tough on crime but tend to be leery of gun control."
As they should be, any law made will eventually be used against law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun control laws are an infringement. As we have seen, the cops will not protect you, but an armed citizen can.
Why do you consider laws against weapons of war to be a violation of your rights to bare arms? Correct me if I am wrong, but the weapons available when the "Bill of Rights" was written were muskets. The founding fathers could not possibly have imagined automatic weapons capable of killing large numbers of people. No one wants to take away your hand gun or a hunting rifle. People do not hunt with these weapons unless they want pre-minced meat. I just don't understand why anyone wants a weapon that is meant for the military during war times.
Automatic weapons are not sold to the public without a very hard to obtain specialist dealer's license. AR-15 and similar rifles are not the sort of weapon used by the military. And, they are less powerful than any big game hunting rifle. But otherwise, you're right on.
Thank you for your polite comment.
It was too polite:
The free speech available when the "Bill of Rights" was written was an individual on a soapbox or a hand-printed leaflet. The founding fathers could not possibly have imagined automatic presses, radio, television, or the internet capable of spewing lies or truth to large numbers of people. No one wants to take away your internet access, but people do not speak with these technologies unless they want to propagandize.
[Off the cuff analogies, but close enough for gov't work.]
"laws against weapons of war"
Virtually EVERY gun pattern out there has been a weapon of war. You even say as much in your second sentence (without realizing what you were saying). Muskets, flintlocks, shotguns, revolvers, bolt action, semi-auto, fully auto, single shot, pump action, lever action... ALL were weapons of war at one time.
"when the "Bill of Rights" was written were muskets."
Which is why the 2nd Amendment says the "right to keep and bear muskets"... wait. No. It says to have a properly functioning militia, the people should have access to "arms" without infringement (and you'd want them comparable or better than whomever the militia is fighting).
"No one wants to take away your hand gun or a hunting rifle."
Odd. Most of those two nowadays are magazine fed semi-automatics. Exactly like an AR.
"People do not hunt with these weapons unless they want pre-minced meat."
Here is a tip for your future arguments. NEVER use this idiotic statement. My ignorant aunt says the same thing as you. Somehow she knows more about guns than us actual gun owners. Us stupid gun owners think that the 5.56 cartridge used by the AR is at the lower end of the power spectrum when it comes to rifle cartridges. Do yourself a favor (so you don't look so ignorant) and compare just the size of a 5.56 (AR cartridge) to a .30-06 ("Hunting" cartridge) and you'll quickly learn how stupid that statement is.
"I just don't understand why anyone wants a weapon that is meant for the military during war times."
I just don't understand why anyone wants a weapon LOOKS like a military weapon, but lacks the features used by all modern militaries. TFIFY
Thanks for your reply and yes , I am not a gun owner and have no knowledge about guns; however, I am aware of the recent shootings of school children and grocery store visitors. Don't you find that concerning? Finally, what is TFIFY?
Yes, I find it concerning as do probably ALL gun owners. We are very much in favor of staunchly enforcing the law and harshly punishing violent criminals. What we don't want to do is "fix the symptom". Instead, we want to fix the PROBLEM. The problem is that some time in the past 2 or 3 decades we've suddenly started having mass shootings where few happened previously - despite having semi-automatic rifles such as the M1 Carbine (a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle that was the equivalent of the AR-15 in WW2). When the war ended, the government sold the M1 to anyone who sent them a check. No background checks. No age restrictions (kids could order them). Directly to the buyer's house. And no mass shootings.
Many people used to take guns to school so as to be able to hunt on the way home. There are pictures of guns all lined up in elementary school coat lockers where this was being done.
Fast forward 5 decades and something has drastically changed. We need to find out what/why and fix THAT. It makes no sense to take guns away from a psychopath while leaving him roaming free to then attack with a knife/bat/rope/gasoline/ball bat/pushing someone in front of a subway/etc.
An AR is a low powered semi-automatic rifle. Anti-gunners/ignorant people believe they are super duper high power. They are rifles - making them significantly more powerful than most pistols - but significantly LESS powerful than other rifles (like the "hunting" rifles you mentioned). ARs are limited to varmint hunting in many states (coyotes, ground hogs, prairie dogs) due to lack of energy.
The only difference between an AR and a "hunting" rifle is that the AR LOOKS like a military weapon. It does so because the M-16 design is now open source, meaning gun manufacturers don't have to invest time and money designing a new gun from scratch given the design is already done. Add to that ARs are very ergonomic (so one gun can fit different size shooters), easy to maintain, easy to modify with different parts (stocks, forearms, triggers, etc), easy to clean, familiar to former military, light weight, accurate, and fairly low cost. IOW, they are simply a modern rifle.
TFIFY means "there. fixed it for you".
I did not call you stupid and doubt very seriously that you are!
When the Bill of Rights were written citizens WERE ALLOWED TO OWN WEAPONS OF WAR. They could own cannons and warships if they could afford them. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with hunting whatsoever.
Real modern weapons of war are automatic (machine guns) and extremely expensive for a civilian to own due to severe restrictions. An M-16 would run you upwards of $30,000 and take a year for approval to own from the government. New ones have not been allowed to be manufactured for civilian ownership since 1986 and has thus driven up the cost of available ones.
The modern AR-15 fires a .223 caliber bullet which was originally designed to hunt varmits but since humans are fairly easy to kill it works on them too. The .223 round is not considered ethical to hunt deer in some states because it may not have the power to cleanly kill one.
The US military has recently adopted a larger cartridge for their rifles because the 5.56 NATO (.223 cartridge) has proven to be limited in it's effectiveness on the modern battlefield.
You should really learn something about firearms before you take the propaganda spewed out by anti gun people before you just blatantly regurgitate it back up.
Guilty as charged. I no nothing about weapons and have never owned a gun. I've made it to 72 years old without one. I am concerned; however, about all the recent mass shootings and feel that we need common-sense laws that keep these weapons out of the hands of unstable people. We will have to agree to disagree hopefully amicably.
I do agree that we need to keep dangerous weapons away from unstable violent people. The issue is that if someone is determined to do harm they will find a way. It doesn't have to be a gun. It could be a truck or some other vehicle like the 2021 Christmas parade attack in Waukesha WI, combining common chemicals to make an explosive like the Oklahoma City bombing, or the sarin gas attack in Tokyo in 1995.
Evil will always find a way to hurt others and stopping innocent, law abiding people from having the means to defend themselves from that evil only helps the evil.
There are an estimated 20 million AR-15s in the US. That does not include the millions of other firearms deemed "weapons of war" by people who don't know any better. How many of there many millions of "weapons of war" are used to harm others? I would say less that 1/10,000 of 1%. Banning there guns only harms people who have not committed a crime and have hurt no one.
There have to be better ways to stop these crazy, evil people than wanting to punish millions of innocent people for the acts of a very few evil ones.
We have these laws:
* 1934 National Firearms Act
* 1968 Gun Control Act
* 1986 Hughes Amendment
* 1995 Lautenberg Amendment
Are these common sense laws?
None of them are common sense. They were all reactionary laws created politicians who wanted to be seen "doing something" or in the case of the Hughes amendment more severly restrict machine guns available to civilians.
Because there are scenarios where you might need them in a military setting. Ask Ukranians defending their homes and neighborhoods. Further the 2nd amendment says "arms" ...."may not be infringed" Hunting or Muskets or full auto is irrelevant.
Silly boy.. the very term "arms" means weapons of MILITARY useefulness. The period of time WHEN those weapons are/were militarilyuseful is not a consideration. Bear in mind, as well, that at the time that Second rticle of Ammendment was written, the vast majority of weapons in the hands of THE PEOPLE were simply what they owned at home, on the farm, when travelling, etc. They showed up for weekly drill for the local town militia bringing their own weapons. There WERE no restrictions on what guns anyone could/could not own. Even, in spite of Dopey Joeuy's ignorant claim, the locals could and often did own cannon. And/or the complete saiing vessel which mounted them.
WHEREever did you get the idea that ownership of arms was resticted back then? Didjya know, at the time our War for Independence was ongoing, anyone rich enough could purchase a brand new rifle that was semi-automatic, self-loading, and repeating... in other words, it could and did fire multiple rounds in VERY rapid succession (about six rounds per minute, compared with one round every three minutes for the average Brit flatfoot) and could fire forty rounds without stopping to reload. The only "barrier to entry' was the cost.. it ws VERY dear. But it worked, and was a frighteningly effective weapon in its day. Grenades, bombs, catapaults, cannon, were all "in common use" at that time, which meant anyone with the funds to purchase and feed could own it.And use it.
Because they feel like it.
No other justification is needed.
Democrats, by contrast, are enthusiastic about gun control but tend to be leery of draconian criminal penalties that contribute to mass incarceration and have a disproportionate racial impact.
Yeah, that party's legislative and administrative history really distinguishes it from Republicans. The fact is that they like to appear as though they give a fuck about the victims of our prison state but in fact will toss your ass in jail for the slightest of deviations from the central plan.
And the GOP likewise wants to pretend to be against gun control but it's also a show.
No one wants Joy Behar saying mean things about them.
No one wants Joy Behar.
I’m to,d she can be repelled by a cubic if, or an 8x10” photo of Trump.
"Republicans like to look tough on crime but tend to be leery of gun control. Democrats, by contrast, are enthusiastic about gun control but tend to be leery of draconian criminal penalties that contribute to mass incarceration and have a disproportionate racial impact."
Nope. Activists on both sides are more than eager to outlaw personal freedom and punish violators. They just differ a bit in totalitarian priorities. And the left seems to be trying to set some personal records.
“Three Felonies a Day?” Ha, I commit more than that every night in my sleep.
Just more they can use against you, as it suits them. This “law” is another that needs to be overturned.
Slightly out of date, but here's data on Federal firearms violation prosecutions by year and particular law violated. The overwhelming majority are for "Unlawful shipment, transfer, receipt, or possession by a felon."
https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/492/
This article confirms the worst dumbassery of Reason. By arguing against some actual movement on gun control they show just how ignorant they are and devoted to the purpose of "freedumb" when that kind of freedom takes away the freedom of others.
Well, unless it's the freedom to be gunned down anywhere outside your house (or even inside) by some deranged asshole. Yay America.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that laws preventing law abiding people from having guns don't have an effect on criminals who by definition don't follow the law.
Therefore all laws banning guns do is penalize people who follow the law. Murderers will continue to carry guns.
Recently a potential mass shooting at a mall was stopped by one man with a legal gun. If he hadn't been there the cops would have waited until the shooter was out of ammo and all his victims had bled to death before thinking about possibly doing something.
A "rocket surgeon"? That is a unique construction. Must be dangerous work.
It was that or brain scientist.
I will gladly take the "freedom" you mention, (to be gunned down anywhere) as long as I can ALSO have the freedom to have available AND USE whatever weapon I think suitable for the equation. Careful you don't narrow the options to such a point that we re all left on our own, the coppers will somehow figure out how to arrest ME instead of the dirtbag perp who started and almosst finished the gig.
Ah, there is that word "freedumb" again.
It does not make you look as sophisticated as you feel you are.
a makarov in a canvas holster? who picks these stock photos to use on gun articles?
That photo was posted by someone with a camera, a Makarov, and a canvas holster. I would likely suspect Oleg Volk.
Closer inspection, it's a generic nylon holder, and the photo is sourced to Dreamstime, to go-to stock photo source for many.
9mm Makarov is not uncommon in the US, my son owns one.
Be a good dad and get him a Falco leather holster for his birthday.
Really well made. I've been using mine for years.
"...tend to be leery of draconian criminal penalties that contribute to mass incarceration and have a disproportionate racial impact."
Are you fucking kidding me?
Biden Crime Bill
Super-predators
Qualified Immunity
The list goes on....
Who is the vice president again?
A prosecutor with the rep of overcharging, maybe even having an honorary Angela Corey trophy for Overzealous Prosecution?
Her ADA’s must have done all the work. She’s too stupid and incompetent to do anything herself.
That's not a canvas holster, it's a nylon holster. Not a bad pistol though.
It's a Makarov 380. Being from the Eastern Bloc it's a rugged gun, but the double-action trigger combined with a weak cartridge makes it less than desirable for most people.
Most Makarovs are in 9mm Makarov (9x18mm) a bit larger than .380 (9x17mm or 9mm Corto). Some were rebarreled for .380 for the US market. My son got a good deal on a Makarov because the previous owner had problems with his ".380" Makarov; turned out it was an unconverted 9x18mm Makarov. The recoil springs are awfully robust, and difficult for some people to operate.
Yes, bullet diameter for a .380 is .357 inches.
Bullet diameter for a 9x18 Makarov is .375 inches.
Makarov has a sharp rather unpleasant recoil. I upped my springs and it tamed it considerably.
Get some Wolf springs to go with that Falco.
Republicans like to look tough on crime but tend to be leery of gun control. Democrats, by contrast, are enthusiastic about gun control but tend to be leery of draconian criminal penalties that contribute to mass incarceration and have a disproportionate racial impact.
Democrats have compartmentalized "crime" and "crime with guns". Seriously. They will dismiss any rise in crime as a non-issue, then turn right around and talk about "the sharp rise in gun crime".
Probably why they want to arrest all the guns and lock 'em up.
Arrest the guns? Democrats want to Wacoize the compounds of gun owners under Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement.
In Great Britain, to be ineligible for a Firearms Certificate to purchase, acquire or possess a firearm, you must have committed a crime punishable by THREE YEARS or more imprisonment.
I remember Democrats sold the US 1968 Gun Control Act with the question, "You don't want violent felons buying guns, you?". What we got was "felony" being any crime, violent or nonviolent punishable by more than 11 month 29 days in jail, even if the actual sentence imposed or served was less than one year. Think Martha Stewart's felony perjury conviction for lying about being tipped off her stock was going south. And Democrats see to it that the office that oversees restoration of gun rights remains unfunded, so the only path to federal restoration of gun rights is a presidential pardon.
Right on. First comment to address the finer point of the article. Martha Stewart is an excellent example of "overreach" She is not dangerous, violent and not likely to re-offend on anything. She and thousands like her have ZERO reasonable due process chance to restore their gun rights. A presidential pardon is remote and politically distributed. This should be changed. Unfortunately, the pool of needy people in this situation is too small for either party to care about. We all want to disarm violent career criminals and the dangerous mentally ill with no criminal records. Neither will happen.
Granting authority to some so they may initiate force, threaten all and do so with a public moral sanction, is self-enslavement, self-sacrifice. People have been recorded doing this since historians wrote about it. Then, people complain about the results, but keep doing it. Why? Is self-governance so hard, so frightening, that self-sacrifice and self-enslavement is preferable? For most, yes, but not for all. Unfortunately, the majority believe they have the right to force their mistakes, their failed system, on all. If they choose to be ruled, all must be ruled. How will we conduct political experimentation? Very slowly, against majority ignorance, against tradition, against superstition. And pay with our lives for the enlightenment we bring.
"Democrats, by contrast, are enthusiastic about gun control but tend to be leery of draconian criminal penalties that contribute to mass incarceration and have a disproportionate racial impact."
So Democrats do not believe in the Bill of Rights and base their application of criminal laws on a persons skin color rather than actions.
Incarceration of Blacks is not disproportionate to the number of crimes they commit. In fact it is disproportionately LOW. Young Black males between 14-49 commits well over half of all violent crimes. Those males make up 3% of the total US population.
Proportionality needs to b measured by actions, not melanin content.
I would imagine that both parties know this act won't make it past the Supreme Court. After all, the elections are coming up soon, and both parties want to generate talking points. At the same time, as Gil Scott-Heron sang, "This is a violent civilization, if civilization's where I am." So, it would be quite refreshing to hear constructive suggestions for changing our violent civilization.