Anna Eskamani, a 27-year-old Democrat who's running for the district 47 seat in the Florida House of Representatives in Orlando, says she tossed the four-page questionnaire the National Rifle Association sent into her recycling bin. A totally proper response given both the intimidatory nature of the questions as well as the NRA’s profound failure to understand common sense, statute law, or the Constitution whose Second Amendment seems to be the only one the gun lobby’s leaders ever take a stand on.
From the get-go, the questionnaire’s wording clearly shows the NRA goal is to intimidate candidates. Question No. 1 asks whether candidates can be counted on to stick to the answers they give after they are in office. Question No. 2 shows how little versed the NRA (and the United Sportsmen of Florida that partnered in drafting the document) are once they step outside their chief concern of selling more guns:
(b) “The Florida Constitution (Article I, Section 2) guarantees basic rights to all natural persons including the right to defend life and protect property. The oath of office requires you to place a hand on the Bible and swear to support, defend and protect both the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution. That includes the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. If elected, will you support, defend and protect those rights?”
One big problem with this brazen God-will-get-you-if-you-cross-us message: Article VI, Clause 3 of the federal Constitution includes a specific prohibition on religious tests for public office. And not one of the 50 states includes a constitutional oath of office that includes any religious language except the phrase “so help me God.” Anybody who wants to can leave that phrase out when they are sworn in, as affirmed in Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961.
Moreover, neither any state nor the federal government requires use of a Bible in connection with the oath of office. An office-holder can swear on the Quran, the Hebrew Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Constitution, a Marvel comic-book or nothing at all if they wish.
The questionnaire blows it in several other areas as well.
Part of it focuses on Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, whose text can be seen here. A multi-pronged but modest reform that gained broad bipartisan support and Republican Gov. Rick Scott’s signature, the law was passed in the wake of the slaughter of 14 students and three staff members at the high school in Parkland, a small city in greater Miami.
The changes include raising the age to buy rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21, banning of “bump fire stocks” that allow semi-auto rifles to fire more rapidly, extending Florida’s current three-day waiting period to buy a handgun to all firearms, barring persons adjudicated as mentally ill from buying or possessing a firearm, setting aside $400 million for hiring “safe-school officers” and providing mandatory active shooter training at each school, and providing funding for mental health counselors in schools, among other things.
Which takes us to Question No. 3:
“The 2018 ‘Gun Control/School Safety’ bill contained gun control provisions that we believe are unconstitutional. In addition to the lawsuits that have been filed against the state to overturn these provisions, pro-gun legislators have pledged to file legislation to repeal the gun control provisions.
“(a) The new law prohibits adults between 18-21 years of age from purchasing a firearm. Adults 18 and older can vote, sign contracts, become law enforcement officers and join the military. Will you support legislation to repeal this provision of the law?
Yes, Americans can vote and sign contracts at 18. But they can’t be legally sold alcohol until they are 21. Federal law also restricts the sale of handguns to individuals who are at least 21. It’s nonsense to think the courts would find it unconstitutional for a state to restrict the sale of all firearms to those 21 and older.
“(b) The new law also imposes a 3-day waiting period between the purchase and the delivery of any firearm. There is no empirical evidence that waiting periods stop crime or violence. Will you support repeal of the 3-day waiting period provision of the law?
In fact, there is empirical evidence, as shown in this 2017 Harvard Business School report published by the National Academy of Sciences. In the 17 states with waiting periods, the authors estimated about 750 homicides had been avoided by the delay. And, for the record, Florida already has a three-day waiting period for handguns. What exactly is the problem against extending that waiting period to all firearms?
“(c) Additionally, the law imposes a ban on the sale, transfer and possession of bump stocks, which are used to increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic rifles AND any accessory, device or kit that can be used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm. This language, which is undefined, is so broad that it could include anything that improves the function of a firearm, including scopes, competition triggers and foregrips, to name a few such items. The law makes anyone who sells, transfers or possesses these items, which were acquired legally, a felon. Will you support repeal of the bump stock, accessory, device and kit provision of the law?
Hyperbole is the NRA’s prime m.o. Here’s the definition that the lobby claims would allow telescopic sights to be prohibited by the ban on bump fire stocks:
As used in this section, the term “bump fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
The wording is perfectly straightforward in content and context and is no threat to competition shooters, hunters, or other customizers.
The fact the NRA has targeted Florida’s gun reform law clearly shows that the lobby has zero intention of moving away from its stubborn, hardcore stance against even the mildest new gun restrictions. A good reason for every Democratic candidate to toss their questionnaire.