Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

A Democrat contender thinks he can change America's gun laws in 2020. He's dreaming

Eric Swalwell clearly thinks his ideas will get picked up by whoever runs against Donald Trump. But let's consider who they'll really affect

Jay Caruso
Washington DC
Tuesday 18 June 2019 17:56 BST
Comments
Eric Swalwell is polling at less than 1 per cent, but some of his policy proposals are making waves
Eric Swalwell is polling at less than 1 per cent, but some of his policy proposals are making waves

When a presidential campaign is floundering, or in the case of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif), it's never gotten traction to start, the candidate typically reaches for the stars with a bold idea.

Swalwell rolled out his gun control plan yesterday, and while it is sure to make The Brady Campaign and Moms Demand Action happy, the entire offering is a cornucopia of pie-in-the-sky ideas, many of which wouldn't withstand constitutional challenge.

Some of the proposals mirror regulations in several states such as a 48-hour cooling off period, the limit on gun purchases per month, and a new law set to take effect in Swalwell's home state of California, requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition.

It's Swalwell's other, more grandiose ideas that will find plenty of resistance in Congress and the courts, among them the requirement to purchase liability insurance, the retroactive ban on semi-automatic rifles, and his proposal for a national firearms registry.

The liability insurance requirement has little to do with safety and everything to do with creating a punitive means of making it more difficult for people to purchase firearms. Skeet-shooters in Louden County, VA or at the Hamptons in New York wouldn't bear such a burden. No, it would fall on the working class guy in Jerkwater USA who wants to target-shoot or a poor grandmother on the south side of Chicago who wants to buy a firearm for self-protection. And you can bet the people who are a threat to her life wouldn't take time out of their day to visit a local State Farm agency to sign up.

Outside of the financial burden, the constitutional question remains an issue. After all, possessing a firearm is a constitutional right. If any legislator proposed requiring a newspaper, website, or magazine to carry millions in libel insurance to operate, the uproar would come swiftly and justifiably so, as it would constitute an infringement of the exercise of both free speech and the free press. Why should a citizen's second amendment rights be any less sacrosanct?

Phoenix police officer pulls gun on black family and warns he'll 'shoot them in the face'

As for Swalwell's plan to retroactively ban certain semi-automatic rifles — referred to by him as "military-style assault weapons" — as well as bump stocks, large capacity magazines, and silencers, it will most certainly run afoul of the fifth amendment. Swalwell claims his plan is not confiscatory because he's offering compensation in the form of a buy-back. That's like an armed robber pleading innocence because he tossed his victim a $20 bill after relieved them of their wallet, phone, and laptop. The compensation means little in the way of due process. Retroactively turning millions of law-abiding citizens into instant criminals and promising to throw them in jail won't go over as well as Swalwell thinks.

The gun registry proposal may likely run afoul of the constitution, but it's also an idea that's nearly unworkable. Democrats often say to look to our neighbors to the north in Canada for ideas about healthcare. Swalwell should consult with political leaders there about the failure of their gun registration system.

The Canadian Firearms Registry went into effect in 1998. Leaders promised a net cost of just $2m to taxpayers ($119m to run and $117m in fees) with the rest paid for by the registration fees. By 2002, overruns brought the implementation tab to $629m. In addition to the cost, the system was rife with errors, and auditors concluded the program could not show how the registry minimized risks to the public. All this took place in a country that at the time had a population of 34 million, who owned 17 million firearms. The program proved so expensive and ineffective that Canada dissolved it in 2011.

One can imagine the bureaucratic nightmare a similar program would be in the United States. Estimates show Americans own approximately 390 million firearms. Not only would the price tag be in the billions, but who can say that it would work out any better than what they tried in Canada?

Swalwell no doubt hopes his ambitious plan will catapult him out of the polling basement in the 2020 Democratic primary race, or at the very least get picked up by another candidate with a much better chance of facing Donald Trump. Whatever happens, while the plan may be ambitious, the chances of getting passed are about as likely as Swalwell's chances of getting elected president.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in