HR 1565: Universal Background Checks (Again)

[Tom Servo]

It's back. This is the House version of Schumer's background-check bill. It has 109 co-sponsors.

The Brady Campaign is already urging their members to text representatives on the matter, and we need to make our voices heard. The most efficient venue is Popvox, which allows you to send a letter of opposition directly.

This is less likely to get passed in the House than it ever was in the Senate, but it's not a good idea to leave anything to chance at this point.

 

[dakota.potts]

Popvox vote cast, Mr. DeSantis will be getting a call from me tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up on this one.

 

[SamNavy]

My rep here in VA is Scott Rigell, a very pro-gun Republican who "gets it". I have written him several times to show my support and let him know I've got his back come election time.

I just registered at Popvox and will use it as another avenue of communication.

 

[cvc944]

I think it is more than important, it's imperative. My rep, Charles Dent, was notified.

 

[Closing The Gap]

Unfortunately like the senate bill the congressman from my area is a supporter. However my wife and I have both sent another round of letters. The Levins in Michigan are a real pain in the &@#!!

On a side note we are 2 weeks away from moving to a more rural area in the next county(away from Detroit hurray!). The rep. there is a republican named Kerry Bentivolio http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Kerry_Bentivolio_Gun_Control.htm who's opinions on gun control can be seen at the link. Needless to say we are going to be much happier in our new home.

 

[csmsss]

Will be interesting to see if Boehner shows any real leadership on this. He has already broken the Hastert rule on at least three occasions and I have a funny feeling he will on this as well.

 

[JimDandy]

It does appear to be the same

Given the stories of backlash from the Senate bill, I wonder if this isn't an attempt to get the pro-gun Representatives in the same hot water.

I think it could backfire quite a bit however. I see all sorts of amendments hitting this sucker, then going to the Senate.

National Reciprocity- WITHOUT the NY/CA/ETC exemptions- for example. Then we have all the anti-gun Senators voting against background checks.

 

[csmsss]

Given the stories of backlash from the Senate bill, I wonder if this isn't an attempt to get the pro-gun Representatives in the same hot water.

It is, undoubtedly. In fact, that was the intent of the Senate bill - to put the HoR on record opposing these supposedly "common sense" measures in order to campaign on them in the 2014 midterms. But that unraveled when an ostensibly compliant Senate failed to pass any of them. So now the goal is to do the same in the HoR - hoping they can shame Boehner into allowing this to reach the floor, despite the Hastert rule (rule that no bill is supposed to be brought to the House floor that is not supported by the majority of Republican representatives). Boehner has been putty in the Democrats' hands, and I'm sure they are confident they'll leverage him on this issue as well.

 

[JimDandy]

They wouldn't have to leverage me. I'd throw it out there full speed. And make sure we stick National Reciprocity without the exemptions, the Peacable Travel improvements, complete funding for the ATF's appeals office, knock at least some of the ATF's NFA regs out of the ballpark i.e. supressors, all the toys and goodies we want-

And then let the Senate anti-gun folks vote down universal background checks- which will be the soundbite for almost everyone.

Edit to add: Remember, if they couldn't pass the amendments themselves in the Senate, they can't pass the amendments to remove them. So the Republicans in the House get to pass "Universal Background Checks" and the Senate can't even remove the stuff they don't want and have to vote on the bill itself.

 

[KenL]

Done. We need to keep the pressure up on our elected officials.

 

[JimDandy]

We need to make it the right pressure... Let's use this. Have them add a bunch of small poison pills. National Reciprocity, the Peaceable Travel protections, The stuff we wanted amended that didn't pass. Then ship it off to the Senate. The Senators in "trouble" for voting no can then vote yes, explain they just wanted a better bill to pass, and the anti-gun Senators will be the ones on record last as voting no.

Edit as I think of more..

National Reciprocity

Concealed Carry on Amtrak

Major fines for arresting/prosecuting people peaceably Traveling.. i.e. the Queens DA that nails people at the airport.

Fully funding ATF office of appeals for Federal firearms rights restoration.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I got a nice little bulk letter from Sherrod Brown as many did in Ohio. Such a load of crap.

I'll send him another letter, just know he counts the numbers and never reads them.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's clear that the effort is not over to pass restrictions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/biden-planning-fresh-gun-control-push-90883.html?hp=t1_3

Joe is planning more efforts. The thing to remember, as if I have to remind folks, is that the emotional and seeming reasonable appeal of UBCs is only seen as a first step to more draconian bans. That is the answer to why not agree to them. Yes, they might make sense but they only feed the fire to total bans of everything except double barrel shotguns fired in the air.

Despite our vanished Scalia apologists - a few changes and it can all go away.

 

[JimDandy]

I still maintain that this was a grievous error by the gun control advocates. They pushed this in the House to embarrass and stigmatize the gun rights voters. But it's in the House. The House is theoretically very pro-gun rights. They can amend the bajeezus out of this thing. I would not include anything like re-opening the NRA registry yet- but we can put so many little things on this bill it could become intolerable to the pro-control people in the Senate. At which point we'll either get a whole lot of stuff we want in exchange for UBC's- OR it'll backfire and the voters who only hear "voted against background checks" especially because that is the 90% number, not other gun-control that consistently polls far worse.