On August 15, 2025, Representatives Dan Goldman and Jerry Nadler of New York introduced H.Res. 656 in the U.S. House of Representatives. On its face, the measure condemns the July 28 mass shooting in Midtown Manhattan that left four people dead, including a New York City police officer, and calls for honoring the victims and first responders. But tucked inside the resolution are sweeping calls for federal gun control measures – universal background checks, bans on so-called “weapons of war,” and red flag laws.
Gun rights journalist Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, sounded the alarm almost immediately, warning that H.Res. 656 was “gun control in disguise.”
The Tragedy at the Center of the Debate
The July 28 shooting was one of the deadliest in New York City in 25 years. According to the resolution text, the gunman, who had a history of mental illness, opened fire inside an office building in Midtown, killing four people and injuring several others before taking his own life. Among the victims were NYPD officer Didarul Islam, security guard Aland Etienne, business executive Wesley LePatner, and young professional Julia Hyman.
House sponsors framed the resolution as a tribute to those lives lost. But as Yanis pointed out in his video, the measure went much further than remembrance.
From Condemnation to Gun Control
The key shift in H.Res. 656 comes in its latter sections. Beyond offering condolences, the resolution explicitly states that states with strong gun laws, like New York, are “endangered by states with weak gun laws” and that Congress has a “duty to pass comprehensive Federal gun safety legislation.” The text names universal background checks, bans on semiautomatic rifles, and red flag measures as examples of laws that “could have prevented” the shooting.
Yanis argued that this framing is a political sleight of hand – “a Trojan horse aimed right at the Second Amendment,” as he described it.
Universal Background Checks: A Federal Registry?
One of the most controversial parts of the resolution is its call for universal background checks. In his breakdown, Yanis warned that this would inevitably lead to a federal gun registry. “Make no mistake,” he said, “universal background checks equal a federal registry of gun owners.” Critics like Yanis argue that such registries give the government the ability to track and eventually confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens, while criminals continue to operate outside the system.
“Weapons of War” and the AR-15 Question
The resolution also calls for banning “weapons of war,” language that Democrats frequently use to describe AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. According to Yanis, this is a direct attack on the most popular rifle platform in the United States. “They cloak it in sympathy so they can tug on the heartstrings,” he said, “and then they hammer away at our freedoms.” The debate over what qualifies as a “weapon of war” has long been a flashpoint, with gun rights advocates insisting these firearms are functionally no different than many legal hunting rifles.
Red Flag Laws and Due Process
Perhaps the most contentious piece is the resolution’s endorsement of red flag laws. Under these laws, firearms can be seized from individuals deemed a threat, often based on a court order obtained without the owner present. Yanis blasted this provision, saying red flag laws “seize first, due process maybe later.” Civil liberties advocates have raised similar concerns, warning that red flag measures trample not just the Second Amendment but also Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections.
Political Theater or Policy?
It’s important to note that H.Res. 656 is a resolution, not a bill. That means it carries no legal force and cannot directly create new gun laws. As Yanis highlighted, “The resolution does nothing on its own. It’s not a law. It’s not binding.” Instead, it serves as political theater, laying the rhetorical groundwork for future legislation. By tying the language of sympathy to policy demands, the resolution aims to normalize federal gun control measures in the wake of tragedy.
The Numbers Game: Guns Crossing State Lines
Supporters of the resolution, including Goldman and Nadler, pointed to statistics showing that 78% of guns recovered from New York crime scenes over the past decade came from out of state. The resolution argues that this “patchwork” of state gun laws undermines safety in states with stricter regulations. But Yanis countered that criminals will always find ways around new laws. “The only people hurt by these laws are law-abiding gun owners,” he said.
Exploiting Tragedy for Policy Goals
The most troubling part of H.Res. 656 is the way it uses grief as political leverage. It’s one thing to honor victims and first responders, but it’s another to embed sweeping policy proposals in what appears to be a condolence measure. This tactic risks turning every tragedy into a legislative springboard, where the emotional weight of loss is used to rush through controversial measures. As Yanis argued, “This isn’t about honoring victims. That’s about stripping Americans of their rights.”
A Narrow House Majority Complicates Things
Yanis also noted the political backdrop: Republicans currently hold only a slim majority in the House. With recent resignations narrowing the margin even further, Democrats may see resolutions like this as a way to build momentum for larger gun control pushes. Even if H.Res. 656 doesn’t pass, it sets the stage for follow-up bills that could capitalize on shifting public sentiment.
Action Items for Gun Owners
In his video, Yanis urged viewers not to dismiss the resolution just because it’s symbolic. He encouraged citizens to call and email their representatives, warning them not to co-sponsor or support the measure. He even offered scripts for phone calls and emails, stressing that lawmakers need to hear that constituents “see through this and will not stand for it.” For Yanis, grassroots pressure is essential to stopping what he sees as incremental erosion of constitutional rights.
A Debate That Won’t Go Away
Whether H.Res. 656 advances or dies in committee, the debate it sparked isn’t going anywhere. Resolutions like this one serve as political markers, signaling where lawmakers want to take the gun control debate next. Gun rights advocates like Jared Yanis see them as warning shots – subtle steps that, if ignored, pave the way for sweeping restrictions. Supporters see them as necessary responses to an ongoing crisis of violence.
More Than Meets the Eye
On paper, H.Res. 656 is about honoring victims of a mass shooting. In practice, it is also about reshaping the gun debate at the federal level. By embedding policy goals in a sympathy resolution, its sponsors have blurred the line between condolence and legislation. As Jared Yanis put it, “House Resolution 656 is not about safety. It’s not about honoring victims. It’s about disarming Americans by increments.” For anyone watching the Second Amendment debate, this resolution is a reminder that sometimes the most significant political battles are fought in the fine print.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
