If you watched the so-called “hearing on gun violence” sponsored by the US House Judiciary Committee, did you notice who made up the “expert panel”? On the gun control side, you had a mass shooting survivor, two law enforcement chiefs, a paid lobby attorney, and a trauma surgeon. For the gun rights side, you got a rape survivor and an attorney not otherwise affiliated with a gun rights organization.
That’s right – Democrats got six of the eight available seats, and Republicans got two. And those two witnesses were not shown any respect or courtesy. Frequently, they were not even allowed to finish sentences. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) tried to out-lawyer Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm, an actual law professor, by demanding a specific answer expressly out of context. Jackson-Lee demanded to know if the simple existence of a universal background check infringed on second amendment rights.
Dr. Malcom attempted to frame her response appropriately, but was not allowed to finish her sentence. Jackson-Lee goes on to dismiss Dr. Malcom’s remarks of the process being burdensome to gun owners with “we have no data to prove that.” When that didn’t work, Jackson-Lee dismissed her and directed a different question to the police chief. The reality is, we do have data that exactly demonstrates the process, and it can be shown to be burdensome, in time and money. But the real problem is that Jackson-Lee thinks it’s sufficient to say UBCs are not an infringement, rather than showing how UBCs might actually deter crime. Jackson-Lee could not allow that to come up.
This demonstrates that there is no intent to be honest in these hearings. It was only meant to show derision and wave party flags to roust the Democrat rabble. Why does anyone think “doesn’t hurt” is a valid reason to pass a law? Why isn’t the burden on lawmakers to show that a given proposal would be effective? Perhaps it’s because UBCs are being shown as utterly useless in deterring any kind of crime.
Other interactions were quite notable, too. Overall, the gun-rights witnesses were either treated poorly or utterly ignored. You see, gun controllers only want to hear from people who’ve suffered a loss, and not people who’ve prevented a loss.