Earlier this month, Senator Cynthia Lummis introduced the “Lawful Purpose of Historical Firearms Act” which is a step towards aiding in the preservation of certain historic firearms in museums.
Previously, I published a forum post, “A Legal Dilemma for Museums in the United States,” which discussed the fact that non-government museums in the US are bound by all firearms laws. This contrasts with countries like England that have museum licenses, allowing curatorial discretion for the acquisition of historically significant artifacts, regardless of whether civilians can own them. While government entities currently can possess these items, there are a limited number of museums that fall under this designation that are actively accepting collections.
Regardless of where a person stands on individualized ownership, preserving historic artifacts and entrusting respected institutions to securely store them should be a bipartisan endeavor. These artifacts represent over a century of history that will be lost if not preserved; history that directly impacts not only technological research but also cultural discourse. Artifacts are teaching tools that can be used to have larger public conversations about how history impacts the present and future, in good and bad ways. By giving these items to a museum, it ensures that these histories remain something from which everyone can learn.
One of the biggest hurdles to allowing museums to accept these items is the most basic of them all. How does one define a museum? Not all museums are created equal. If the standard was set only for those with American Alliance of Museum (AAM) accreditation, the pool would be limited to around 5% of all museums, creating a similar issue of space that is found in government entities. There are a number of factors for why a museum wouldn’t have accreditation. Being a respected institution that can securely and safely store these collections and AAM accreditation are not mutually exclusive. This bill defines “museum” in a way that both ensures public safety and allows for a broader range of institutions to possess these items.
The Supreme Court’s United States v. Bruen decision has placed history into the spotlight of determining the constitutionality of a modern firearms laws. As such, these artifacts play a significant role in this process. Technology can be read about in books but is better understood through physical examples, some of which could be destroyed if a government entity does not take it into custody.
A copy of the bill can be found here.