In mid-December 2023, Vice President Kamala Harris hosted a gathering of some 100 state legislators from across the country as part of the new “Safer States Initiative” from the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. The event encouraged those lawmakers to adopt two “executive actions” from the Justice Department that the administration says will “reduce gun violence and save lives.”
Stated Goals
The White House wants the states to do the following:
- “Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention;
- Invest in evidence-informed solutions to prevent and respond to gun violence, including community violence interventions, Crime Gun Intelligence Centers, and implementation of Extreme Risk Prevention Orders;
- Strengthen support for survivors and victims of gun violence;
- Reinforce responsible gun ownership, including by requiring safe storage of firearms and reporting of lost and stolen firearms;
- Strengthen gun background checks, including by enacting universal background checks legislation and removing barriers to completing enhanced background checks;
- Hold the gun industry accountable, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and enacting firearm-specific liability laws to ensure that victims of gun violence have their day in court.”
Let’s address those quickly:
- The White House wants states to create new entities to push gun control propaganda and look for ways to skirt the Constitution.
- They want states to use skewed gun control numbers from agenda-driven sources like the Gun Violence Archive. They also want the states to generate their propaganda by focusing their efforts on guns found at crime scenes instead of dealing with criminals who commit crimes. Finally, they want state-level Red Flag Laws, which violate the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.
- How about supporting survivors and victims of ALL violence? But that wouldn’t fit the narrative, would it?
- I’ll address this one below.
- Criminals do not submit themselves to background checks. So-called “universal” background checks are unenforceable without a national firearms registry. I believe “universal” background checks are being pushed to justify a registry when the checks do not curb crime. So-called “barriers to completing enhanced background checks” mean lifting the rule that says the FBI cannot take an unreasonable amount of time to complete checks. In other words, they want the ability to delay checks if they choose.
- The Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen Decisions prohibit banning firearms “in common use for lawful purposes.” AR-15s and similar rifles meet that standard. Next. And do we hold Ford or Chevy “accountable” when a drunk driver kills someone with one of their vehicles? No. This is a blatant attempt by ideologues to sue the firearms industry into oblivion.
“Model Legislation”
The two so-called “executive actions” are really just strong suggestions with some guidelines that the White House says will help states accomplish the goals stated above. They aren’t real executive orders. They do, however, focus on goals from the most anti-gun administration in American history and push them down to states who share them. Both take the form of “model legislation,” meaning the administration is telling state lawmakers how to do their jobs. Of course, most, if not all, of those lawmakers are happy to be led around, or they wouldn’t be there anyway. Here’s what the White House had to say about each “action.”
Safe Storage Model Legislation
“Safe storage saves lives. It is one tool in the toolkit to reduce school shootings because we know that most often, those students who carry out K-12 school shootings are using firearms they obtain from the home of a friend or family member. It is also a critical strategy to reduce suicide by firearms, accidental shootings, and the theft of firearms. The Department of Justice’s model legislation details how states can require the safe storage of firearms, including in vehicles, and hold individuals liable for harm caused by unsecured firearms.”
Let’s unpack that. Responsible gun owners agree that firearms should be stored properly. I haven’t seen this “model legislation” yet, but you can be certain that it requires guns and ammo to be stored separately and each gun to have a trigger lock, in addition to being locked in a safe or cabinet. They may even say guns should be stored disassembled, though that may be more like a “suggestion.” Of course, we all know that guns without ammo, guns with trigger locks, or disassembled guns are useless in an emergency. Be certain that they know it, too. That’s why I refer to such mandates as “so-called ‘safe storage’” laws. Safe, in this case, is relative. I believe that each individual knows his or her requirements better than legislators and gun controllers. And notice how they shift responsibility for school shootings onto gun owners instead of the actual perps.
And, as with so many gun laws, this one is unenforceable by any reasonable means. Sure, you can prosecute people after the fact, but so-called “safe storage” mandates can only be effectively enforced by regular random inspections backed up by, you guessed it, a national firearms registry. They don’t tell you that part. Many people will obey such a mandate, potentially compromising their personal security in the process. But the impossibility of enforcement will create lax attitudes and people will fall back on how they’ve always done things. This will only provide a means to prosecute people other than a prospective shooter.
Such laws may interdict the occasional suicide, but as someone who once walked that road, I can tell you that people who are truly in crisis will find a way. So-called “safe storage” laws will have little impact on those folks. And, again, the law is unenforceable anyway.
Lost and Stolen Firearms Reporting Model Legislation
The White House press release says that “Reporting of lost and stolen firearms allows law enforcement to investigate and prosecute firearms trafficking. The Department of Justice’s model legislation provides states with a framework for requiring that a person promptly report the loss or theft to law enforcement.”
That’s all well and good. After all, responsible gun owners don’t like gunrunners any more than the feds do. But studies have shown that, since gun trafficking is already illegal, and FFLs are already required to report lost or stolen guns, laws like this have little impact on curbing it.
A January 2023 Rand Corporation study found that “reporting requirements might encourage private gun owners to take steps that decrease the ease with which their firearms might be lost or stolen (e.g., by storing their firearms in a locked container). Second, reporting requirements could deter some straw purchasers who fear that failure to report their firearms as stolen could leave them accountable if their guns later turned up at a crime scene. Third, timelier reporting of gun losses or thefts may aid law enforcement’s gun-tracing efforts and increase criminal prosecutions of illegal users or traffickers of stolen firearms, potentially reducing the stock of firearms available to prohibited possessors or to individuals seeking to obtain firearms for criminal purposes.”
Note the liberal use of words like “might,” “could,” “may,” and “potentially.” Once again, gun trafficking is already illegal, as are straw purchases. FFLs are already required to report lost or stolen firearms.
The Rand study concluded that “Requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms is unlikely to have measurable effects on such outcomes as suicide, unintentional injuries, and deaths, defensive gun use, or hunting and recreation. If the requirements successfully discouraged straw purchases, it could have a small effect on firearm sales.”
This effort seems to be more about coercing the government’s idea of “safe storage” than reducing gun trafficking, especially since I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t report a lost or stolen firearm. It looks like another way to punish people after the fact rather than a means of prevention.
The White House Office of Gun Violence “Prevention”
White House Office of Gun Violence Director Stefanie Feldman remarked, “These are policies where the White House in this administration have (sic) made progress at the federal level, and we are going to call on Congress to act, but in the meantime, we are going to be working hand in hand with states to advance all these agenda items.”
Actually, the feds haven’t really done anything with these policies. There are no federal “safe storage” laws and no federal mandatory reporting other than with FFLs, which have long been in place. From where I stand, this looks like a propaganda effort to pressure states to do what Congress hasn’t done.
In case you didn’t know, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is staffed by career gun control advocates. Kamala Harris, as the “Gun Violence Czar,” is the figurehead, but she likely doesn’t do much, if any, policy work. Even so, she has plenty of anti-gun street cred. Longtime Biden aide Stefanie Feldman runs the office. Feldman has worked for the president for over a decade on various policy issues, including as National Policy Director for the Biden-Harris presidential campaign. Since gun control, including bans and confiscations, was a big part of Biden’s campaign, it’s not difficult to deduce Feldman’s views on the subject.
Feldman’s assistants are Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety policy advisor Rob Wilcox, who has appeared before Congress several times advocating for extreme measures such as gun bans. His most recent job was as Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs at Everytown, a Michael Bloomberg organization. He is joined by Greg Jackson, leader of the Community Justice Action Fund, a gun control group focusing on minority communities. Those leadership choices demonstrate that the office’s mission is restriction, not prevention.
Pressuring the States: A Calculated Move
The Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision, which built on the earlier Heller and McDonald Decisions, has curtailed federal gun control efforts, as evidenced by the beating the ATF has taken in court this year. So, gun controllers have increasingly turned to state-level gun control efforts. Many state legislators, especially in blue states, generally like gun control, so it’s an easier sell.
And I suspect the administration will look to move some taxpayer cash to states that jump on board, as they did with the Red Flag Laws last year. Congress may have something to say about that, so we’ll have to see how it goes.
State gun control laws are still governed by the Second Amendment and Bruen, but there’s no consequence for introducing and passing unconstitutional bills, though I often wish there were. Enacting such laws at the state level means that gun rights advocates must spread their resources wider to combat them. After all, a given amount of money might go a long way toward fighting a single unconstitutional federal law. But how far will that money go toward fighting similar laws in seven different states?
You might ask why lawmakers would intentionally pass laws they know will be challenged in court, often successfully. There is a reason, and it’s not always because they don’t know any better. The Supreme Court currently favors gun rights, as evidenced by the Bruen Decision. But pro-gun rights Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are in their 70s. Legal challenges take a long time, often years. Gun controllers push these anti-gun laws, hoping that the Court’s makeup will change by the time the challenges go that high. That is not just me speculating. Second Amendment attorneys believe the same thing. I learned it from reading and watching what they say. I’m a geek like that.
So, pushing these initiatives down to the states is a calculated move, not to supposedly save lives, but to crack the door on gun control while sapping resources from gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). All the while hoping the Supreme Court will flip, as it eventually will.
Like I Said…
I first reported on the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention when it was formed a few months ago. Here’s what I wrote:
“This office…will seek to restrict lawful gun owners and dealers as much as possible by working around Congress… it will serve as a propaganda outlet to push the administration’s anti-gun agenda…This new office is dangerous, not because I expect it to catalyze sweeping change, but because it will work around the edges, blurring the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches. And it will do that deliberately in the name of ‘public safety.’”
I concluded by saying, “I like to remind people that the worst excesses of the French Revolution’s ‘Reign of Terror’ were carried out by the so-called ‘Committee of Public Safety.’ The Committee exercised broad power over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Revolutionary government. In other words, it blurred the lines. Is this office on that level? No, not even close. But its claims to look out for the public are expressed along the same lines, and you have to start somewhere.”
What to Do?
Here’s where they’ve started, and it’s all in the name of “safety.” Gun controllers will never stop. The goal is civilian disarmament, despite their rebranding themselves as “gun safety advocates” (there’s that word again). Because they will never stop, we can never relax. I know I sound like a broken record (does that saying even mean anything these days?), but your state legislators need to hear from you. Get involved with a state-level organization. They usually have better insights into state-level politics than the national groups. Where I live, it’s the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Fantastic organization. Your state probably has something like that, too.
But we also need to join national groups like SAF, FPC, GOA, and the National Association for Gun Rights. They are all doing great work right now, so maybe throw them a few bucks if you can. Even the NRA helps, though I know they aren’t necessarily the favorites these days. As a life member, I totally get that. But we need to be involved.
It is a historical fact that rights, once they’re gone, never come back. Ever. Rights become political tools for those in power to dangle as carrots. But the government with the power to grant rights always has the power to take them away. We cannot allow that precedent to be set. Now is the time. The gun controllers know that. Do you?
