By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A spirited debate about gun policy has erupted in New York’s 17th Congressional District race, where Democrat Beth Davidson recently authored an Op-Ed chastising Republican Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY, 17th District) for supporting legislation to remove the $200 tax on owning NFA-regulated firearms.
Davidson’s Aug. 15 piece appearing at lohud.com, part of the USA Today network declared, “Just a few weeks ago, four people — including an NYPD officer — were senselessly killed in New York City by a gunman armed with an AR-15-style rifle. It was the deadliest shooting New York City has seen in 25 years…
“But instead of protecting our communities,” Davidson says in the next paragraph, “federal leaders like U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler and Donald Trump are doing the opposite. In July, Lawler passed and Trump signed a reconciliation bill eliminating the $200 tax on purchasing or manufacturing silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns and other dangerous weapons.”
Lawler, who didn’t singlehandedly pass the legislation as Davidson’s assertion intimates, fired back five days later, also at lahoud.com, writing, “Beth Davidson’s recent column reads like it was ripped straight from the far-left gun control lobby’s playbook…”
A few lines later, Lawler asserts, “And here’s what Davidson left out: suppressors remain tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act. Purchasing one still requires two separate FBI background checks, ATF registration, fingerprinting, photographs and notification to local law enforcement. No law-abiding New Yorker is suddenly walking out of a gun shop with a ‘silencer’ like in a Hollywood movie. The only thing this change did was stop penalizing responsible citizens with a $200 tax.”
In the wake of the New York shooting—which drew blistering criticism of New York gun laws from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms—making gun control part of a congressional campaign is nothing new in politics. But in the case of the 17th District race, the issue draws distinct lines between incumbent Lawler and challenger Davidson, and underscores the differences in philosophy between the political Right and Left.
Davidson’s Op-Ed wraps up with what is essentially a campaign speech.
“Our communities cannot afford to go backward,” she writes. “We must reinstate and strengthen the National Firearms Act. We must restore funding to the ATF and reject efforts to fold it into agencies like the DEA, where its mission will be destroyed. We must invest in mental health services, community violence intervention programs and research that treats gun violence as the public health crisis it is. And it’s past time to restore the Assault Weapons Ban — a law that reduced mass shootings and saved lives — and take weapons of war off our streets once and for all.”
And Lawler’s response boils down to this: “Democrats like her push unconstitutional bans that even the Supreme Court has made clear cannot stand after D.C. v. Heller. If an assault weapons ban were constitutional and effective, why didn’t Democrats pass it when they controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2009–2010 and again in 2021–2022? They know it won’t withstand scrutiny, and they know it won’t stop crime. But it makes for a good talking point.”
