It’s probably a bad sign when your legislature has a “Firearms Safety” Caucus, since for many Democrats “firearms safety” is code for “gun control.”
Such is the case in Michigan, where the Firearms Safety Caucus is pushing a plethora of gun-control schemes in the state legislature, including a ban on common firearms magazines that come standard with many guns and opening up gunmakers to lawsuits for misuse of their lawfully made and legally sold products.
According to a report at WPEV.com, Democrats in the State House of Representatives are pushing a magazine ban, a ban on bump stock devices, a ban on gun ownership by young adults 18, 19 and 20 years old, a three-day waiting period between purchase and taking possession of a firearm and a measure that would allow state-level lawsuits against gun manufacturers and require firearm dealers to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance.
Addressing the waiting period, Democrat Rep. Helena Scott used the same inaccurate talking points that have been used in every state that has attempted such a restriction.
“This is a straightforward safeguard designed to slow down moments of crisis,” Scott told the news channel.
Of course, as NRA-ILA points out in a fact sheet on its website, waiting periods are actually just arbitrary impositions with no effect on crime or suicide, introduce no additional investigative avenues, and only burden law-abiding gun owners without changing how or when criminals obtain firearms.
“There is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, or mass shootings,” the fact sheet states. “No studies that identify causal effects have been identified by any of the independent literature reviews conducted since 2004.”
The fact sheet also notes that waiting periods do not alter the background check process, as no additional investigative measures are taken regardless of the length of the waiting period. Furthermore, according to NRA-ILA, research indicating that waiting periods have some positive effects is flawed.
“Recent research that purports to find that waiting periods reduce firearms-related deaths is fundamentally flawed, as it also finds that background checks increase gun homicides and that poverty is associated with a decrease in homicides,” the fact sheet states.
As for the gun ban for those under 21, states with such laws are currently fighting to keep those laws alive in courts throughout the nation. In fact, the federal courts of appeals are intractably divided over the constitutionality of laws that restrict the ability of 18-to-20-year-olds to acquire or carry firearms. While the Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida’s ban on adults in this age group purchasing any firearm from any source, and a panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a similar Colorado age ban, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found unconstitutional the federal ban on 18-to-20-year-olds purchasing handguns from licensed dealers.
Lastly, concerning allowing lawsuits against gunmakers, such lawsuits for the criminal use of legally made and sold products are a hallmark of the Democrat anti-gun wish list. In fact, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) forbids lawsuits against gunmakers when their lawful products are misused by violent criminals.
Still, the Michigan Democrats are pushing the entire list of proposals, hoping one or two will make it through the legislative process. Fortunately, with Republicans controlling the state House, chances are slim that any of the proposals will make their way to the governor’s desk.
