H R 127 - It's far worse than it looks at first glance. Absurdly so, in fact.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Note also the attempt at 'forced teaming' in the post you're replying to

...This lack of judgement, the inability to stand up for the process or to stand responsibly for the use of the weapon is important for the continued health of the 2nd. This bill goes a long way to ensuring this and if it means disqualifying some gun owners, then that’s what it means. For the rest of us who are responsible gun owners, it means protecting the 2nd...

A tactic noted many years ago:

How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists in their plan to ban guns.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#361836

From post #55 therein:

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.

Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

I think HR 127 counts as 'harassing gun owners'. From the same post as above:

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms.

So, yeah- you're right to be skeptical. This is SS,DD...