Key Takeaways
- • Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), a senior Judiciary Committee member, called for passage of the Protecting Our Kids Act and specifically advocated for a federal ban on assault weapons during a House committee markup on June 2, 2022.
- • Cohen cited the 1994–2004 assault weapons ban as constitutional precedent, noting that during that decade the U.S. experienced fewer mass killings, and argued the 2008 Supreme Court *Heller* decision does not preclude reasonable Second Amendment restrictions.
- • Cohen referenced recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas; Buffalo, New York; and Tulsa, Oklahoma as evidence of urgent public demand for legislative action, characterizing the issue as addressing "something gun-crazed about our country."
- • Cohen emphasized that assault weapons are "weapons of war" designed to kill, producing injuries so severe that victims cannot be identified without DNA analysis, and flagged the concern that 18-year-olds purchasing assault weapons immediately after their birthday should trigger regulatory scrutiny.
Summary
Congressman Steve Cohen made forceful remarks during a House Judiciary Committee markup session on June 2, 2022, calling for swift legislative action on gun control measures, specifically the Protecting Our Kids Act and a renewed ban on assault weapons. Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat and senior Judiciary Committee member, framed the issue as a response to constituent demands and recent mass shooting incidents in Uvalde, Tulsa, and Buffalo.
Cohen's central argument rested on constitutional precedent and empirical evidence. He pointed to the 1994–2004 federal assault weapons ban as proof that such restrictions are constitutionally permissible under the Second Amendment, noting that this decade saw fewer mass killings than the post-2004 period. He directly addressed the Supreme Court's 2008 *District of Columbia v. Heller* decision, which affirmed an individual right to firearms, by arguing that the Court's reasoning does not preclude reasonable limitations on weapon categories—a position he framed as consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence, which similarly permits narrow restrictions on speech.
Cohen used graphic language to underscore the lethality of assault weapons, stating that victims shot with such weapons sustain injuries so catastrophic that forensic identification requires DNA analysis. He argued this distinction—that assault weapons inflict destruction incompatible with civilian self-defense—justifies their prohibition as a category separate from standard firearms protected under *Heller*. Cohen also flagged a pattern concern: that 18-year-olds purchasing assault weapons immediately upon reaching legal age represents a "red flag" warranting regulatory intervention.
Cohen's rhetorical framing characterized gun violence as reflecting a systemic cultural problem requiring congressional action, stating there is "something gun-crazed about our country that we need to deal with." He explicitly rejected the characterization of legislative action as rushed, noting that gun control debate has been "delayed for decades" and that constituent pressure stems from observable, recent mass casualty events rather than abstract policy preferences.
Cohen's central argument rested on constitutional precedent and empirical evidence. He pointed to the 1994–2004 federal assault weapons ban as proof that such restrictions are constitutionally permissible under the Second Amendment, noting that this decade saw fewer mass killings than the post-2004 period. He directly addressed the Supreme Court's 2008 *District of Columbia v. Heller* decision, which affirmed an individual right to firearms, by arguing that the Court's reasoning does not preclude reasonable limitations on weapon categories—a position he framed as consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence, which similarly permits narrow restrictions on speech.
Cohen used graphic language to underscore the lethality of assault weapons, stating that victims shot with such weapons sustain injuries so catastrophic that forensic identification requires DNA analysis. He argued this distinction—that assault weapons inflict destruction incompatible with civilian self-defense—justifies their prohibition as a category separate from standard firearms protected under *Heller*. Cohen also flagged a pattern concern: that 18-year-olds purchasing assault weapons immediately upon reaching legal age represents a "red flag" warranting regulatory intervention.
Cohen's rhetorical framing characterized gun violence as reflecting a systemic cultural problem requiring congressional action, stating there is "something gun-crazed about our country that we need to deal with." He explicitly rejected the characterization of legislative action as rushed, noting that gun control debate has been "delayed for decades" and that constituent pressure stems from observable, recent mass casualty events rather than abstract policy preferences.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.