Cawthorn also said he spoke on behalf of millions of Americans, and specifically the 700,000 people in his district, but as the debate over HR8 and HR1446 continues, there is at least one constituent in his district who disagrees.
Both projects were heard in the House on March 11, and while neither mentions anything about the confiscation of weapons, the two basically deal with the reinforcement of a background check system riddled with loopholes that could allow banned buyers to end up armed.
The first, HR8, is entitled the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021. In essence, it says that for transfers of firearms between unlicensed individuals, a licensed importer, manufacturer or distributor must take temporary possession of a firearm from a seller and perform a background check on the buyer. If the check is successful, the transfer can proceed. Otherwise, the weapon is returned to the seller.
There are a number of groups HR8 does not apply to, including police, private security or members of the armed forces within the scope of their official functions.
Exceptions would also exist for “good faith” transfers between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including stepfathers and stepchildren, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intend to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from carrying firearms in accordance with state or federal law. ”
The measure won the support of one of the most well-known advocates of policies to prevent armed violence in the country.
“With the original bill being created by the founders of our organization, we support it a lot,” said Brian Lemek, executive director of Brady PAC. “The approval of HR8 is just a common-sense solution to this complex problem. We have armed violence, but 90 percent of Americans support more background checks. You wonder why we didn’t have more than eight Republicans [as co-sponsors]. “
Brady PAC was founded in 2018 as the political arm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which was founded by James and Sarah Brady and led the 1993 Brady Act in Congress.
James Brady, an Illinois Republican, was serving as President Ronald Reagan’s press secretary on March 31, 1981, when a 25-year-old man with mental problems opened fire at the Washington Hilton, injuring Reagan, Brady, the secret service agent Tim McCarthy and DC Police Officer Thomas Delahanty.
All four survived, but Brady’s head injury impaired his speech and left him able to mobilize only through the use of a wheelchair until his death in 2014.
The 1993 law that bears the name Brady was an update to the Arms Control Act of 1968 and instituted the background system currently in place.
“It is the most significant gun legislation of all time, but times have changed,” said Lemek. “There are some gaps that made it possible for prohibited buyers to purchase firearms. The arms fairs at that time were not a huge undertaking for the purchase and exchange of firearms and accessories, etc. They were really meant to show you what’s new out there. They did not exist in the same format as they do today. “
The other way that times have changed since the adoption of the Brady Act, said Lemek, is the invention of the internet.
“Who would know that you would have access to all this information over the internet, including the possibility of buying a firearm? THE [current] the legislation does not take online sales into account, because there were no online sales, ”he said. “There have been no changes in legislation since its original approval in the mid-1990s, so that’s just taking a really good project, making it better and updating it.”
A national survey conducted in 2015 by the Center for American Progress says that 83 percent of gun owners and 72 percent of NRA members support increased background checks, and six different national surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 put that number among 84 and 94 percent.
Cawthorn told The Smoky Mountain News on March 15 that he continues to oppose HR8.
“I am against bureaucracy,” he said. “There are certain aspects to increasing background checks that I can support. You know, maybe if we could break the veil of HIPAA and allow people to really get a real picture of someone’s mental health, I think it would be very powerful and beneficial. “
The other bill passed the same day as HR8 was HR1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021.
“That would close what we call the Charleston breach,” said Lemek. “Many excellent people were murdered in a church by a boy who should not have put his hand on a firearm. He shouldn’t have that ability because he was a prohibited buyer. “
On June 17, 2015, a 21-year-old white supremacist and neo-Nazi entered the historic African Methodist Episcopal Church Emanuel in Charleston, South Carolina, and joined a dozen people in a Bible study group. When they closed their eyes in prayer, he shot them.
“The FBI has three days to complete a background check,” said Lemek. “About 90% of all weapons checks are done in about two minutes and 97% in at least three business days. This leaves a very, very small percentage of the population that has to deal with it, around 3%. Now, that 3 percent, it could take four days. It may take a week. It may take a week and a half. “
There was some kind of initial problem with the Charleston sniper background check that resulted in an initial delay at the time of purchase, but as the law is written, no determination can be made through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, called NICS , within three days, the transfer may still proceed.
“Instead of waiting longer, they gave him the gun,” said Lemek. “The check came back later saying he shouldn’t be with him.”
Cawthorn believes that HR1446, if approved, could have unintended consequences.
“The big problem is that there really isn’t a sun definition clause on that subject, so when they say they want to increase the time on background checks and give it another 10 days, the bill that would allow them to use this as a weapon and allow them to hold on to it indefinitely, ”he said. “Now, do I think the FBI would do that? No, but I believe that we can fall on a slippery slope and that law would end up giving them that loophole. “
When Cawthorn spoke in the House in opposition to the bills on March 11, he was more direct and absolute in his opposition to HR8 and HR1446.
“If we lose the Second Amendment, then the First [Amendment] will fall. I want to remind my colleagues of a simple fact that is often swept under the rug from the left – Americans have the right to obtain a firearm for legal purposes, ”he said. “I will repeat it louder for those on the left sleeping on their backs – Americans have the right to obtain firearms. It is my right and, Mr. Speaker, it is your right, but let me be clear to everyone in this chamber: you are not going to take that away from us right away. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the DC bubble, but out of here, in real America, when we say ‘come and get it’, we’re serious ”.
At the end of his brief speech, Cawthorn opined that the measure was unconstitutional.
“I speak for millions of Americans,” he said. “I speak specifically on behalf of more than 700,000 Americans in my district when I say that if you think that this bastardization of the Constitution will be met with silence, then you know nothing about America that I know.”
Part of Cawthorn’s statement, however, may have been somewhat exaggerated.
“No, he doesn’t speak for me,” said Natalie Henry Howell, a resident of Haywood County.
On April 30, 2019, a 22-year-old former student entered a classroom at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and started shooting. Howell’s son, Riley, ran towards the sniper without hesitation and stopped him, but not before losing his own life in the process. Since then, Riley Howell has been universally hailed as a hero for preventing further violence.
Her family now operates a charitable foundation, and her mother has talked about gun control measures in the past – especially in January 2020, when the Haywood County Commissioners Council decided to pass the so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolution.
“I think we can all agree that we want our country to be safe. We want our schools to be safe. We want our churches, we want our public places to be safe, and that is a sensible and reasonable thing to do, ”said Howell about HR8 and HR1446. “If you look at the background checks and see what they are trying to do, I can’t see why no one would support them. When you look at the fact that these projects are bipartisan, that more than a hundred Americans die of armed violence every day – my son is included in that count – I think you have a different perspective when it hits you personally and if there is one a way to strengthen our background check system again, so that people who can’t legally have a gun don’t get it, so that’s the right thing to do. ”
Cawthorn said that if he could speak directly to Natalie Henry Howell’s mother, he would know what he would say.
“I would express my sadness, how I feel about what she will have to go through,” he said. “So, I would say I’m sad that Democrats, they always face the tragedy to try to get some kind of bill passed, but what that bill is doing is asking law-abiding Americans to trust criminals they will not go outside the law to acquire a firearm. With the number of firearms that exist in the country, and especially those that do not have serial numbers, which cannot be traced, these accounts would not have prevented the UNC-Charlotte shooting. “
He’s right – like Brady’s attacker and Charleston church sniper, Riley Howell’s killer acquired his firearm in accordance with existing law.