Democrats May Push To Block Lawmakers From Carrying Firearms At Capitol

Normally, articles like this should be taken with a grain of salt, as there has been no actual legislation or anything else offered at this time, however, since these are Democrats involved, it could well happen

Dems Might Challenge Rule Allowing Lawmakers to Have Guns at Capitol

For five decades, members of Congress have been allowed to have firearms in the Capitol—but that law might be changed if murmurs between California Democrats come to fruition. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said his objective has the support of likely incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, her spokesperson has said Pelosi vows to “revisit” the law.

Although a Republican counterpart—Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—says the move is just evidence that the liberals are trying to “solve a problem that doesn’t exist,” the effort could be a harbinger of things to come as the anti-gunners ramp up efforts to force more gun control down our throats.

Massie has a point. When was the last time you heard about a congressional representative going through the halls of the Capitol waving a gun. Huffman was even hard-pressed to name any colleagues who have guns in their offices.

We can only surmise that if the gun control folks start by limiting the rules on congressmen, it will give them more motivation to go after the rights of ordinary citizens because, after all, we can’t have more rights than the people in charge.

How many Congressman and Senators carry? Or even have a firearm in their office? There’s no study on that. And do they really need one? They have lots and lots of armed security all over the Capitol building as well as the separate office buildings they use. But, that’s not the point. The rule is about providing for self defense as authorized by the Bill of Rights.

The wider point is that Democrats do, in fact, want to ban gun from the hands of law abiding citizens (well, with lawmakers, that might be abidingish). And one may well be a federal red flag law. The American Conservative’s Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is concerned, like many, over the potential for abuses with state run red flag laws, and point to something which hasn’t received much press

Since March, Florida and several states have passed red flag bills, bringing the total to 14 including the District of Columbia. Several Republican-majority legislatures have thwarted similar efforts in their states. But it may not matter. Armed with a new majority in the House of Representatives and seeming bipartisan support in the Senate, Democrats are closer than ever to passing new gun control legislation and federal “extreme risk protection orders” are the most likely to succeed in the next session. Why? Because prominent Republicans in the Senate, specifically Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, are already on record with their own bills, adding to popular Democratic proposals in both houses.

“The Emergency Risk Protection Order is designed to fill a gap in current law,” Graham said upon introducing the bill with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal last March. “It can be utilized when an individual has moved into crisis, but has not yet committed a crime.”

“The bill we introduce today is a starting point,” Graham continued. “It’s the place where we begin a long-overdue discussion about firearms and mental health. But we must start.”

We could get into the wider discusses of the merits and problems with red flag laws, but, really, do want need this at the federal level? Getting beyond the notion that not only does the Constitution not authorize Congress to be involved in this type of issue, it explicitly bars Congress from getting involved. And would we want Los Federales to be the ones issuing confiscation orders? How hard would it be to fight them? How costly? How abused?