AP Photo/Jeff Chiu
Rep. Eric “Nuke ’em All” Swalwell has campaigned primarily on one issue, and that’s gun control. Despite the supposedly broad support for restrictions on firearms within the Democratic base, Swallwell is polling only slightly better than my cat. He’s being beaten on the issue.
That means Swalwell had to up his game, which he did when he rolled out his gun control plan.
Let’s take a look at this point by point.
- A 48-hour cooling-off period between the time a person purchases a firearm and the time they take possession of it.
This is a common proposal among Democrats who claim that it somehow prevents people from committing suicide or spur of the moment shootings. Except, they also tend to support euthanasia or assisted suicide, and there’s little evidence to suggest that murderers won’t murder if they can’t get a gun right away. At best, potential killers and suicides will shift to another means. That’s it.
- Implement background checks for all firearm and ammunition purchases.
Here’s the typical call for universal background checks, which won’t do anything to stem the flow of black market guns on our streets. That’s where criminals are getting firearms, after all.
- Require that liability insurance be purchased before a person can buy, trade, or otherwise receive a firearm.
In other words, this increases the burden of exercising your Second Amendment rights until poor Americans can’t even consider owning a firearm. Further, these are the same people who lash out at things like the NRA’s Carry Guard program.
- Create a national firearm registry that is linked to individual firearms, and require that all purchases, transfers, and donations of firearms be mandatorily registered.
A national firearm registry won’t do anything the moment a gun is stolen, which is where most black market guns come from initially. All it does is enable the government to know where to go looking for firearms if it decides to confiscate them.
- Prohibit individuals from purchasing more than one handgun per 30-day period.
A 30-day waiting period between purchases was tried in several places, and guess what? There hasn’t been a change in the crime rates. Why? Because criminals don’t buy guns through legal means. The only people this will impact are law-abiding gun owners.
In other words, want to buy a gun for you and your spouse? Forget it.
Also, forget buying a self-defense handgun and a .22 pistol for practice purposes.
- Prohibit the online sale of ammunition.
Another proposal that will make it more difficult on poorer shooters. Ammo purchases on the internet allow people to shop around for the lowest prices. It also means local stores have to be competitive with the internet market. Ending online sales does nothing except raise the cost.
- Ban and buy back bump stocks, large-capacity magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and silencers.
Bump stocks are already banned.
As for so-called “large-capacity magazines,” let’s remember that the Parkland killer used 10-round magazines. So what would the restrictions do again?
- Prohibit individuals from hoarding ammunition in quantities exceeding 200 rounds per caliber or gauge.
First, this is completely unenforceable.
Second, 200 rounds per caliber? That’s not even a good range trip.
- Repealing the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Guns Act.
All that law means is that you can’t blame a company for the misuse of their products. What Swalwell wants to do is make it so that you can hold a company liable for what someone else did without their help or knowledge. It’s like suing Ryder for a truck attack.
- Prohibit states from arming teachers.
Heaven forbid that teachers be permitted to defend their own lives. Let’s also ignore the fact that states like Utah have had armed teachers for years without incident.
So what does Swalwell’s push mean? Well, it means he’s desperate. He needs attention from the Democratic base, and he’s not getting it. Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are outhustling him, and he knows it. Since that’s supposed to be his issue, he’s scrambling for relevancy.
Nothing he’s proposing is remotely workable, viable, or likely to make any damn difference.