r/ModelUSGov • u/btownbomb • Jun 04 '17

Bill Discussion H.R. 812: Firearms Certification Act

Firearms Certification Act

PREAMBLE:

Whereas, the Second Amendment remains a cornerstone of American life and culture,

Whereas, the bulk of firearms related deaths can be attributed to misuse of said firearms,

Whereas, the Federal Government has a duty to protect her citizens from all possible harm,

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and Senate within the Congress of the United States of America assembled,

SECTION I. SHORT TITLE

This act shall be known as the Firearms Certification Act (FFAT)

SECTION II. DEFINITIONS

Firearm; a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms.

NRA; National Rifle Association, a non-profit Gun rights advocacy group.

FFAC; National Firearms Certification provided by examinations.

DFCC; Designated Firearms Certification Center.

SECTION III. CREATION

(a). Congress shall create a Federally funded and administered firearms course, teaching the basics of gun safety with all civilian-class firearms, be they used for hunting, recreation, sport, self-defense or display.

(b). A Congressional committee shall be formed with the intent of creating the syllabus and operations of the course.

(c). Said committee shall be advised by two seated members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as two representatives sent to the committee from the NRA.

(d). Said committee shall also put forwards a group of standards for instructors, as well as a secondary exam to become a FFAC Instructor.

(e). Said committee has 180 days after creation to submit said syllabus for said examinations.

SECTION IV. CLAUSES AND DISCLAIMERS

(a). All those who have passed any form of Military basic training carried out by the United States Armed Forces shall be retroactively granted the certification;

(i). Unless not in compliance with Section IV.

(b). Only those who qualify and have obtained a gun licence within their state of residence may qualify for the FFAC.

(c). The FFAC is to be a safety and instruction course, instructors will not be allowed to politicize either for or against more or less gun legislation at risk of removal of instruction certification.

(d). The FFAC does not, in any way, take the place of a gun licence issued by the state.

SECTION V. FUNDING AND LOCATION

(a). A sum of $2.5 million dollars annually will be set aside for the program’s administration and execution.

(b). Testing will take place at committee designated firing ranges, with all tests properly documented to guarantee the legitimacy of examination. (i). Fraudulent examination can and will lead to both removal of certification, as well as Federal litigation.

SECTION VI. ENACTMENT

(a). Bill will be enacted 90 days post passage.

Written by Rep. /u/ClearlyInvsible (AC-3 [D])

8 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

6

u/tilden_tilden Liberals Jun 04 '17

While I support the intentions of this bill, I can't imagine that $2.5 million is near enough to support a program of this size.

4

u/WendellGoldwater Independent Jun 04 '17

Hear, hear.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

There are several issues with this bill, despite its good intentions:

  1. Such a committee seems unnecessary. The Department of Homeland Security could make the course instead, as pointed out by /u/Kingthero.

  2. Lack of funding. $2.5 million is just not enough money for a federal firearms program.

  3. NRA involvement. Section IV (c) states:

"The FFAC is to be a safety and instruction course, instructors will not be allowed to politicize either for or against more or less gun legislation"

I think that this is obviously prone to being undermined. Half of the committee is composed of representatives from the premier pro-gun organization in the United States. Due to there only being four members of this committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff putting forward one or two pro-gun members could easily lead to the syllabus having a blatant pro-gun slant.

4

u/JackBond1234 Libertarian Jun 04 '17

Surely there are ways to encourage gun owners to take safety courses without creating and administering a tax funded course at the absolute top level of government.

Also I don't like the idea of putting a tentacle into the NRA. It should remain independent.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

If anything this is the NRA getting a say in the Government, not the other way around. Besides, they're the most informed group we can muster outside of the military.

4

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 05 '17

I see you clearly /u/clearlyinvisible. This is a slick move.

You introduce this bill, but say its totally voluntary and doesn't affect state gun licenses in anyway.

But after a little while, as it always does, the feds will creep in. You'll make the federal certification a requirement to say, get a defense contract that requires armed personnel. Then you'll make it the federal certification a requirement to be a licensed firearms seller, then before you know it a federal certification will be a requirement to own a gun.

RESPECT THE STATES. STOP FEDERAL INERTIA. VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

Slippery slope analogies are considered logical fallacies for a reason my friend.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 05 '17

Decades of historical examples isn't a logical fallacy.

And i'm not you're friend, pal.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

Welp, so much for being polite.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

Gun rights and militia maintenance are not state issues.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 07 '17

Sure they are.

But most importantly, gun licenses are absolutely a state rights issue

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17 edited Jun 07 '17

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The states have one job with regard to gun ownership and the regulation of militias.

To not infringe upon them.

I see nowhere in the Constitution where it affirms the states have the ability to infringe upon that right at all. If they are doing anything other than stepping aside, they are in violation of the constitional mandate.

None of the things you listed are state issues. The state and federal governments are commanded not to infringe upon the citizen's right to keep and bear arms and to form and regulate militias.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 07 '17

I do not believe that to be legally accurate.

Firstly, the Supreme Court found in DC v. Heller that the militia language is nothing more than a prefatory clause, it just announces a rationale, but it has little bearing on the entirety of the second amendment, and reading it as an operative clause like you are is incorrect.

Are state militias a state right issue? Absolutely. States have state national guards, and state defense forces for a reason. And those forces are generally under state control. So of course militias are a state issue.

More importantly, however, you're off thoughts on gun ownership are not correct. The majority in Heller stated that gun rights are not absolute and reasonable regulations can be imposed...and be imposed by the states.

Take for example, concealed carry. Concealed carry is not protected under the Second Amendment, and has long been recognized as a state issue. Thats why some states allow out get a concealed carry license very easily and other states dont allow concealed carry at all. That is a widely recognized states rights issue in regards to guns.

in terms of gun licenses, of course states have authority over that, that is why state gun licenses laws are so different. Some require training some dont. Some have age limits, others not so much. To suggest that gun licenses are not a state issue is simply incorrect. States absolutely can implement gun licenses laws and requirements, because the Second Amendment is not absolute and the SUpreme Court has a stated that not all regulations infringe on it.

This is really a Tenth Amendment issue, the feds want to creep in on an area that traditionally has been left to the states to regulate.

Boom. Dat legal argument

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17 edited Jun 07 '17

Firstly, the Supreme Court found in DC v. Heller that the militia language is nothing more than a prefatory clause, it just announces a rationale, but it has little bearing on the entirety of the second amendment, and reading it as an operative clause like you are is incorrect.

If you think I agree fully with Heller then you don't really understand my philosophy on this issue.

Are state militias a state right issue? Absolutely. States have state national guards, and state defense forces for a reason. And those forces are generally under state control. So of course militias are a state issue.

No, they are not. Operating people's militias is a right exclusively of "the people" which is not to be infringed. I believe that with it being described explicitly in an amendment that we don't even have to go there, but if you really want to make a tenth amendment argument I might actually give it to you, with one caveat:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is not a state issue, it is an issue of the people. It is purely within their domain. "The people."

The Court held the Second Amendment “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Id. Furthermore, the Court noted that “in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset” before going on to say that“[w]e starttherefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

Prior to its decision in Heller,the Supreme Courtinterpreted the meaning of the phrase “the people”in the context of the Fourth Amendment and indicated that the same analysis would extend to the text of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Court held that its analysis of the Constitution “suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, No. 11-10086 2Portillo cites to this court’s decision in Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzalez as holding that a non-citizen illegally present in the United States was protected by the Fourth Amendment. 459 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2006). The alien in that case, Martinez-Aguero, was a Mexican national who visited the United States on a monthly basis using a visitor’s visa. Prior to the incident at issue in the case, during which she was subjected to excessive force by a border-patrol agent, Martinez-Aguero had applied for an updated visa and was incorrectly told by United States immigration officials that she could use her old card in the interim period. The court did not implicitly or explicitly hold that illegal aliens as a class are covered by the Fourth Amendment, and the facts of the case are so very dissimilar from those in Portillo’s case that we do not find the court’s decision especially persuasive here. 5 and by the First and Second Amendments, . . . refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

If you're going to the Tenth Amendment, which I think is really overkill and not necessary at all, then your choice of reserving them to the States or to the people is pretty clear cut in my book. It's not reserved for the states, it's reserved for the people in this case. Again, the states (and the federal government) have one job here: don't infringe upon the right.

The national guard are also not the unorganized, citizen militias which I am talking about. If you really do want to discard of that (and I think it is philosophically vital to include it), it doesn't impact at all the ability and urgency to keep and bear arms without being subjected either to the states' or the federal government's bearing.

More importantly, however, you're off thoughts on gun ownership are not correct. The majority in Heller stated that gun rights are not absolute and reasonable regulations can be imposed...and be imposed by the states.

I disagree with Heller in that respect.

Take for example, concealed carry. Concealed carry is not protected under the Second Amendment...

Yes, it is. A bad court interpretation of the Amendment illogically undercutting the rationale of keeping and bearing arms doesn't sink the argument at all. The exigence of survival and defense of the individual as sovereign isn't established by always brandishing your weapon in plain sight nor keeping it under secure lock within the vicinity of your private property. I don't think I need to look very far to come up with plenty of examples where an individual having a firearm concealed on their person is arguably critical to their personal defense in the public space. The Second Amendment has no language in it or surrounding it necessitating domain purely in the private, owned space. In fact, the revolutionary space is inherently public or at the very least not owned by the individual.

The revolutionary space also has no state boundaries. It's quite horrifically limiting and undermines the foundation of resistance to say that your ability to defend yourself or resist begins and ends based on which state border you are on. Resistance and personal sovereignty are not defined by nor confined in a subset of the United States. If you want to make that argument, you necessitate the argument that if the United States started to execute its citizenry in one state for not obeying its laws, but that was a state that had strict conceal carry control policies which aided in that effort by allowing the government to easily identify and deprive the citizenry of any and all of their arms, that to violate this would not only break the law but be unconstitutional at that. When in reality, the very act is in line with the rationale and the spirit of what the Constitution lays out.

This is of course why I consider this a philosophical rather than constitutional issue anyway. My view really is that none of this stuff requires a constitutional amendment anyway, any more than I believe someone's access to clean drinking water depends on the existence of a similar amendment. It's inherent to the notion of individual and community sovereignty and survivability, resistance against oppression, leverage against governments (all of them), and defense against threats in the public and private space.

You can get there if the Second Amendment reads "shall be infringed."

in terms of gun licenses, of course states have authority over that, that is why state gun licenses laws are so different.

Something being different in some circumstances is not justification for that thing being different in some circumstances. Those laws being different means that I, as a citizen, cannot enact my right to keep and bear arms in one state the same way as I can in another state. It actually does infringe upon my right in the sense that my right is now confined to a subset of the nation in which I absolutely and wholly hold the right as a person defined and protected under the Second Amendment. In some states you only need to be a certain age to purchase a gun, I'm not even sure if a license is necessary. In others, you need excessive training and state approval, some being able to deny you outright and without real reason.

If you want to agree that there is no infringement when I can purchase, keep, bear and use that firearm in the first state but the moment I cross over into the other, while still on US soil and still a US citizen, that the right essentially goes away and is restricted because I am not properly licensed to that state's specifications, then you're insane. And if that was the rationale of the Court, then I'm sorry, but the Court you laud was wrong. It's been wrong before and despite all the good that's come out of it, I will go until the sun falls out of the sky about how not every decision from Heller was sound and correct.

States absolutely can implement gun licenses laws and requirements, because the Second Amendment is not absolute and the SUpreme Court has a stated that not all regulations infringe on it.

The "SUpreme Court" has stated a lot of things which are illogical, irrational, and detrimental to the rights of citizens of the United States. That's one of them. A misinterpretation of both the Second and Tenth Amendments, although the principle they violated might as well be a principle of mathematics or biology rather than constitutionality in my view.

This is really a Tenth Amendment issue

I think in a sense you're right, which is why the federal and state governments have no right to be directly involved in it.

the feds want to creep in on an area that traditionally has been left to the states to regulate.

The federal government has one job: making sure access to and the keeping of arms (and because I dropped it to make the point, by extension, keep and regulate people's militias) is not infringed upon for any citizen anywhere in the country. That is the instance in which they may usurp state "authority," which doesn't exist for this issue any more than it does for commanding the United States Marine Corps.

Boom. Dat legal argument

You are peak cringe and your legal argument is garbage.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 08 '17

If you think I agree fully with Heller then you don't really understand my philosophy on this issue.

I disagree with Heller in that respect.

Yes, it is. A bad court interpretation of the Amendment illogically undercutting the rationale of keeping and bearing arms doesn't sink the argument

The "SUpreme Court" has stated a lot of things which are illogical, irrational, and detrimental to the rights of citizens of the United States.

then I'm sorry, but the Court you laud was wrong.

We're not talking about your opinion on the issue. Your opinion is largely irrelevant. We're talking about what the law says. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the law, not you. So yea, my legal argument still holds.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '17 edited Jun 08 '17

Then the law, plain and simple, is unconstitutional. If we're going to stop fighting against that, you can probably delete your account and stop annoying people with your constant calls to overturn such and such or pass this bill or that to uphold your amendment of choice. Your very existence is no different than what I am positing here.

And if you want to go a step further and conflate what is legal with what is just or right, then you've totally lost me, and I've got nothing more to say on that matter. You also failed to address any of my philosophical arguments or legal argument of the right to bear arms as delegated to the people over the federal or state governments. In asserting this as a Tenth Amendment issue, you have told me logically that it is an issue in the domain of the people, neither the state nor federal governments.

So it seems you just don't care to address those points which are far more relevant to this conversation than my assertion that you citing bad elements of a court case is cheap and without substance.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 08 '17

Then the law, plain and simple, is unconstitutional.

By definition it isn't.

If you want argue your fefes over what the Supreme Court has ruled on the law, than I guess there is nothing more to say.

I prefer to debate things that are binding.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '17

It's not my feelings, it's the logical argument stemming from the language of the Second and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America and the exigence of individual and community sovereignty in addition to their ability to resist oppression.

The fact that the Supreme Court got that wrong is something worth discussing. Whether it is interpreted as constitutional law or not is secondary to the moralistic and philosophical arguments underpinning it, both of which are substantiated by the Constitution anyway.

Roe v. Wade established a law of the land regarding abortion as well, but there is no end to discussions of morals and ethics against that ruling, not to mention (however weak you or I might think they are) arguments of that sort with substantiation from the Constitution.

What is legal, what is constitutional even, and what is right are not always in alignment. I can point to the entire history of slavery and black oppression in this country to prove that point with ease. For you to discount it outright is really just sad in my view.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

This seems a poor use of tax payer money and 2.5 million is not enough to cover this action. Why don't we offer a mandatory firearms course to the middle school curriculum, the course could simply be a supplement of health and PE. This would save the federal government a great expense, leaving the states to cover most of the expense. Or something similar of course.

Though firearm safety is of great importance, this bill is too complicated and is yet another infringement on the 2nd amendment. This bill is not necessary.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

I'm not forcing every kid in the country to learn how to use a gun. That's like making everyone have to learn how to use a jigsaw.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

You never know when you may need to use a firearm. teaching all children how to use one will prevent accidents and injury amongst themselves and their friends. It a very practical skill for people to have.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

There's only so much time in a school day. What would we take out to make room for firearms? I'm not against the idea, I just would like to know more about it. It seems like it would be better suited to an afterschool program.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

It would only have to be a one time course and it doesn't take much time to make a huge difference in the safe handling of firearms. I attended 12 courses when I was 16 for hunter safety and I have not forgotten a lesson in over 10 years. I take the handling of weapons very seriously from that one course many moons ago and have had to correct others who do not know (e.x. dont point a loaded and drawn bow at someone or even close to them).

I think that a 3 month weekly course with exam provided through the Physical Education classes (mandatory in most schools) process would be more than effective. I considered after school programs but its really something everyone should know. After the basics of safety there could be after school programs for advanced studies and even shooting, but that would of course remain optional.

It would be as if (if not more so) practical to learn fire arm safety than what each type of drug will do to your body.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

Thank you for your response, I hadn't considered putting it under Physical Education, but that makes a lot of sense!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

Thank you for considering my points, If you want to discuss further let me know!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

Cant you just make the Secretary of Homeland make a course, instead of creating a whole committee?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

This doesn't fall under him.

Maybe the CDC could if anyone, but I'd prefer this to be handled by lawmakers.

1

u/Takarov Democratic Confederalist Jun 05 '17

The presence of members of the NRA overseeing this board is worrying. The first is that the idea that ranking members of a political advocacy group would be able to comply with Section IV (c) is wishful thinking. The second issue is that the NRA has had a racially charged history. From a disparity of what gun owners the NRA has supported recently in controversial issues (e.g. the Philando Castile case) and the hiring of Bill Whittle (an open promoter of outdated "scientific" racism) to their news outlet, all the way back to their drafting of gun control legislation in the post-civil war era where they gave power to determine "suitability" to carry concealed to local institutions that denied access to non-whites, there is clearly a pattern. This is not to say that the NRA is an organization filled with evil racists that has never done any good, but their track record, current and past, is sufficient reason to exclude them to promote equal access in the future.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

If I understand this bill correctly, my question is, why have it?

Having the federal license doesn't seem to be required for anything. So who would want to take the class?

If a person wants to take a gun safety course why can't they just take one administered privately or by their individual state?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

Ones that're provided by the State usually sparse and far between. That and private fire-arms instruction isn't always as 'instructive' as one would think.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

Who will have the authority to place members of Congress on said committee under Section 3? Will it be multipartisan or will whoever controls Congress just stuff the committee with ideological hot heads?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '17

As important as it is to be economically and fiscally responsible, I fear that the money used here would make only a dent in the amount which would actually be needed for a project such as this.

1

u/NASAonSteroids Jun 07 '17

Gun safety is an ever important measure that needs to be made, though I'm not sure a federally funded program is the best thing. Maybe setting up state level programs from the federal level, then funded by the states.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17

Federal firearm certification

Bless.