Should Firearms Training Be Required for Politicians?

Some of you may be surprised to learn that politicians often support, or even write, bills on subjects about which they know little or nothing. Just kidding, everyone knows that, especially gun owners. Seriously, who can forget then-California state legislator Kevin DeLeon going on about “30 magazine clips?” It would be comedy gold if his shenanigans didn’t carry the force of law. Well, Illinois State Senator Neil Anderson has had enough.

Anderson recently introduced Senate Bill 2106, which would amend the state’s General Operations Act by requiring that “any member of the General Assembly who wishes to introduce a bill pertaining to a firearm must be able to prove that he or she has completed firearm training requirements under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, range safety officer training, and a basic knowledge test of calibers and gauges of firearms.”

Such a law would be welcome indeed to gun owners who routinely roll their eyes at the erroneous things politicians say about firearms and those who own them. We are of the opinion that many of these seemingly dumb statements are calculated misinformation directed at an ill-informed public, which we see as even more nefarious. Still, requiring a certain level of demonstrable knowledge can only be a good thing. If nothing else, it would be easier to expose deliberate lies.

Why Now?

Many of you are likely aware that Illinois recently passed a draconian “assault weapons” ban in January. The law’s provisions are bad enough, but the nature of the law’s passage makes it even worse. In the waning days of the General Assembly’s lame duck session, gun control senators, urged on by anti-gun Governor J.B. Pritzker, took a bill entitled Insurance Code-Public Adjusters, completely gutted its contents, and replaced them with their gun control wish list.

These Senators avoided the chamber’s rule that bills must be read three times before a vote since the bill, with its original insurance-related language, had already met that standard. The bill’s name and number had not changed, so it technically met the standard. The bill was rewritten, rammed through the Senate, rubber-stamped by the Democrat-controlled House, and signed by Pritzker within 72 hours. The law took effect immediately. It was absolutely shameless, but it allowed Pritzker to keep his campaign promise to ban “assault weapons” in time for him to consider a run at the White House—priorities, you know.

Immediate Legal Challenges

The new law sparked outrage among gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Lawsuits have dropped on an average of one every four days since the ban took effect. The law is currently on hold as the courts have issued temporary restraining orders (TRO) against its implementation.

The suits challenge, among other things, the law’s violation of the Second Amendment and the end run around the three readings rule. The latter allegation is unlikely to stand as the three readings rule has never been iron clad and the bill technically was read three times, even if the guts were entirely different when it went to a vote.

The other suits carry more weight, however, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen Decision, which the law seems to clearly flout. Illinois, like New York, New Jersey, and others, seems determined to go down with the gun control ship, which isn’t surprising given the state’s history of onerous gun control laws. Pritzker is but the latest Illinois politician to hold his state’s gun owners in contempt.

Will SB 2106 Pass?

Nope. Anti-gun Democrats rule the Illinois Senate and House with an iron fist. Even if, by some miracle, the General Assembly passed the bill, Pritzker would certainly veto it. Misinformation is the anti-gun stock-in-trade. There’s no way they will approve anything that takes away from their ability to employ it. Realistically, the bill won’t make it out of committee, where it may not even receive a vote.

But we admire Anderson’s willingness to bring it up. Anderson has a history of such things, supporting sportsmen’s rights and efforts to repeal Illinois’ ridiculous Firearm Owners Identification Card scheme. We think this is an idea worth pursuing, not only for firearms but for other issues as well.

We understand that legislators cannot be experts about everything on which they are asked to vote. But introducing legislation affecting millions of people should require a certain level of knowledge. Not liking guns should not qualify a lawmaker to speak authoritatively about them, which many often presume to do (see Kevin DeLeon, among many others).

We hope Senator Anderson’s bill sparks a new trend to hold lawmakers accountable for what they say and promote. It’s really not too much to ask.