HR 127 was introduced earlier this year and has got to be one of the most egregious pieces of legislation introduced affecting the Second Amendment. This awful, draconian, and Unconstitutional bill has already received plenty of “press” from the pages of Bearing Arms. My colleague Tom Knighton has reported numerous times on HR 127, and I implore you to check out the following articles:

The bill is a melting pot that makes the anti-freedom caucus sing “these are a few of my favorite things”. A quick synopsis from the bill’s summary page does not give the measure its full justice.

This bill establishes a process for the licensing and registration of firearms. It also prohibits the possession of certain ammunition and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must establish (1) a licensing system for the possession of firearms or ammunition, and (2) a registration system for firearms.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms.

Next, the bill creates licensing requirements for the possession of a firearm and ammunition. DOJ shall issue such a license if the individual is 21 years of age or older, undergoes a criminal background check and psychological evaluation, completes a certified training course, and has an insurance policy. It also outlines the circumstances under which DOJ must deny a license (e.g., the individual was hospitalized with a mental illness).

It also establishes additional requirements for an antique firearm display license and a military-style weapons license.

The bill generally prohibits and penalizes the possession of a firearm or ammunition unless the individual complies with licensing and registration requirements. Further, it prohibits the transfer of a firearm or ammunition to an unlicensed person.

Finally, it generally prohibits and penalizes (1) the possession of ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater, and (2) the possession of a large capacity ammunition feed device.

The depths of each line item can provide fodder for dissertations on each topic individually. This is a nasty bill.

From California of all places, a group of ardent Second Amendment supporters decided to get ahead of this legislation in letting the congresscritters know about their discord. San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO) has been working closely with various city councils to pass initiatives admonishing our federal representatives to not support the advancement of this legislation.

The ball started to roll when Jon Thorp a member of Yucaipa City Council moved to have a letter sent to Congressman Jay Obernolte to reject HR 127. The council voted on sending the correspondence and did issue a letter to the Congressman. The letter was signed by: Mayor Greg Bogh, Mayor Pro Tem Bobby Duncan, and Councilmembers David Avila, Jon Thorp, and Justin Beaver. The letter can be viewed in full on a social media post made by San Bernardino County Gun Owners.

While Thorp’s efforts were his own, SDCGO and San Bernardino County Gun Owners supported him in his actions. What took place thereafter was the igniting of a series of more city councils being approached to do the same. Since the March 8, 2021 letter was sent, SDCGO worked with three more councils in having similar letters sent to their respective representatives. From a pair of press releases addressing measures in two different cities (Oceanside and Santee) we have the following:

“This is the most extreme, anti-gun law I have ever seen proposed”, said San Diego County Gun Owners PAC Executive Director Michael Schwartz at the City Council meeting Wednesday night in Oceanside. “This isn’t a ‘common sense’ gun law; rather, if passed, this would be a fundamental change to gun ownership across the nation.”

The proposed letter would be sent to Congress Member Mike Levin and signed by each City Council Member. The letter requests Levin to vote against HR 127 because of its extreme measures to restrict gun ownership and because it is a clear violation of gun owners’ privacy.

“It was important for me to introduce this to the Council. The Second Amendment and preserving the rights to keep and bear arms are a priority for Oceanside residents. As a Marine and as a member of the City Council, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution,” said Oceanside City Council Member Christopher Rodriguez.

Last week, the Oceanside City Council also unanimously voted to send an identical letter to Congress Member Mike Levin. “This is the most extreme, anti-gun law I have ever seen proposed”, said San Diego County Gun Owners PAC Executive Director Michael Schwartz at the City Council meeting on May 19, 2021, in Oceanside. “This isn’t a ‘common sense’ gun law; rather, if passed, this would be a fundamental change to gun ownership across the nation.”

Santee City Council’s proposed letter would be sent to Congress Member Darrell Issa and signed by each City Council Member. The letter requests Issa to vote against HR 127 because of its extreme measures to restrict gun ownership and because it is a clear violation of gun owners’ privacy.

“Santee could not just stand by and let HR 127 go without voicing our concern. We value and cherish our rights and our liberties. I am proud of our vote and the pro-Second Amendment message it sends,” said Santee City Council Member Rob McNelis.

The final vote was 5 in favor of sending the letter to Congress Member Issa with none opposed. Council Members Rob McNelis, Dustin Trotter, Laura Koval, Ronn Hall, and Mayor John Minto all voted in favor of sending the letter.

According to the August 10, 2021 El Cajon, CA meeting agenda, they too jumped onboard with issuing a letter in opposition to HR 127:

Opposition to HR 127 (Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council considers authorizing Mayor Wells to sign on behalf of the City
Council a letter in opposition to HR 127.

The list of city councils that have issued letters to their Congressional representatives urging them to reject HR 127 in full includes:

These moves by individual city councils are a new twist similar to the Second Amendment sanctuary movement. Having full councils sign for their citizens their desire for representatives to reject this awful gun control measure gives a larger amplification to constituents’ voices. This is not an unheard of practice, but seeing California cities do this is notable. Many times people that live in states hostile to freedom who advocate in support of the Second Amendment and in opposition to bills like HR 127 feel as if their voices go unheard.

Personally I feel kindred to the plight of California gun owners. Living in New Jersey I can’t say how many automatic form letters or emails I’ve received back from representatives that find my view to be abhorrent. Once I received a personalized letter in over a decade of engaging with representatives and it was only because someone I know hand delivered my own hand written letter to a state level Senator.

This tactic is something that should be replicated and implemented in as many jurisdictions as possible. At a minimum, those so-called leaders that represent freedom loving constituents in hostile jurisdictions will have a little more bite behind their voices. Those tasked with voting for us in the Republic can’t claim ignorance when there’s such public displays of making desires known. The sentiments are on the record and representatives have been duly notified.

Interested in listening to an interview of Jon Thorp discuss protecting the 2A in Yucaipa? Find below a clip from Episode #246 of Gun Owners Radio, April 25th, 2021:

Loading ...