Universal Background Check bill passes House vote

[raimius]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/542704-house-approves-bill-tightening-background-checks-on-guns

Ladies and Gents, please contact your Senators. This ineffective scheme is a few votes away from being federal law.

 

[Pistoler0]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/542704-house-approves-bill-tightening-background-checks-on-guns

Ladies and Gents, please contact your Senators. This ineffective scheme is a few votes away from being federal law.

Being in Colorado where we already have the universal background checks, I am hoping that's all the legislation they try to pass.

But I am afraid they are going to go after internet sales of ammo and firearm parts and accessories next.

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm not surprised it passed the House. The Senate is where it will live or die. This link makes it easy to contact your legislators.

 

[Gary H]

John Lott's most recent book, "Gun Control Myths" covers this topic. Unfortunately, present society believes what they are commanded to believe.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[shurshot]

This is just the beginning... wait until she is President.

 

[FunGramps]

Washington state adopted universal background checks for some time, and much more big brother pork with it. And a federal background check through an FFL doesn't even cut it. Another bureaucratic checklist must be forwarded to the county Sheriff for their perusal and endorsement to approve the sale...even though the buyer has a current CC permit issues by that same county Sheriff.

Quick...take a trip to Montana and privately buy or sell as many weapons as you wish, as it is still legal there. [Moderator comment: This violates federal law, see post 15]

I'm waiting for their grand plan to take firearms away from criminals. You can laugh now.

 

[TruthTellers]

I'm gonna give an alternate view of what this is because we all know you can pass a UBC law, but it's meaningless unless enforced. So, unless the ATF is looking to expand its operations by about 100 times its current load and states/localities are open to having squads of ATF agents and their infantry fighting vehicles operating at will within their jurisdiction for a guy selling his single shot .22 caliber hunting rifle to his cousin, this is practically unenforceable as state and local police cannot enforce federal law.

Unless Big Guy Joe or Kamala intend to do an Executive Order that mandates registration for all firearms to create a means of enforcing the UBC law with criminal punishment for not doing so. Gotta wonder if in such an EO it will require FFL's to fax their entire 4473 library to the ATF.

I think this is all dry run to see which senators in the GOP are willing to cave for gun control, because if they're willing to sell out for making private firearm sales, something that has been legal since the beginning of the nation, and is not a major cause for criminal use of guns in crimes, then these same Republicans, if not more, will be willing to vote in favor for other gun control laws, such as mag capacity bans, addition of semi auto firearms to the NFA, and other stuff that's worse than UBC.

I mean, we all knew UBC was coming eventually because the general populace is ignorant of the facts because media and social media pump them full of fake news.

 

[corneileous]

So, question.... sure, background checks are useless if there’s nothing for a background check to find but what does this mean, other than trying to make it illegal for any gun sales to take place without a FFL involved; the gangsters and Sons of Anarchy wannabe’s are gonna love that.... that we will have to wait 10 days for a BG to complete, or is this only for those that may be considered suspicious? In other words, those of us that have a clean record- we gonna have to wait 10 days? Every gun I’ve bought legally, I was able to walk out with it the same day I was shopping for it. This mean I won’t get to make my next gun purchase until ten days later?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This mean I won’t get to make my next gun purchase until ten days later?

We have to read it to see what it says. Here's the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text

And the short answer to your question is that the bill doesn't appear to address that issue.

The long answer is that the bill amends the existing federal law, Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, and references compliance with section (t) thereof -- so to answer your question, I think you need to look up 18 USC 922(t).

 

[Gelrir]

I think most states allow their state and local police (state-authorized law enforcement agents) to enforce Federal law, to the extent of arresting presumed violators; it also depends on the Federal law allowing state/local enforcement of a particular crime. Note I'm nothing like an attorney! The violator gets charged in a Federal court. Counterfeiting "to defraud the U.S. government", such as counterfeiting U.S. currency, will get you arrested at the grocery store by a local cop, but handed over to a Treasury agent at some time.

The squabbles in California about enforcement of Federal immigration law by city police departments is an example of this. A city police officer would arrest an immigrant, and the person would be handed over to ICE. Some cities were attempting to prohibit their police from being required to enforce Federal law.

 

[5whiskey]

Unless Big Guy Joe or Kamala intend to do an Executive Order that mandates registration for all firearms to create a means of enforcing the UBC law with criminal punishment for not doing so. Gotta wonder if in such an EO it will require FFL's to fax their entire 4473 library to the ATF.

And there is Federal Statute which bars any gun registration scheme via searchable database, so this cannot be done by EO.

 

[5whiskey]

I see this possibly passing. I hope not, but I could see this possibly passing. We know Romney and a couple others will go for it. There will be pressure, and this isn't any kind of sweeping ban. You know, it's common-sense

 

[FunGramps]

As of now, some states, such as mine and CA for certain, have more anti-gun laws and draconian punishments than the feds currently do. WA state usurps the constitution in this manner precipitously. In WA, anyone, no matter who they are, may tell local law authorities that they "believe" a specific person owns a firearm and poses a risk to themselves or others. Said owner has their weapons confiscated, no matter the evidence or lack of, for up to a full year until the system has determined if the accuser was correct, and indeed the gun owner posed a risk.

Now may I begin with some Godwin's Law stuff?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think I already know this but can somebody explain simply why registration of all guns is necessary for universal background checks to be enforceable.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Quick...take a trip to Montana and privately buy or sell as many weapons as you wish, as it is still legal there.....

And become eligible for up to five years in federal prison and a lifetime loss of gun rights. See 18 USC 922(a)(3):

18 U.S.C. 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—
...

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph

(A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,...

Note well: Do not encourage or suggest on TFL committing illegal acts.

 

[ATN082268]

I think I already know this but can somebody explain simply why registration of all guns is necessary for universal background checks to be enforceable.

Universal background checks are only effective on guns sold by an FFL after it's passage. How can you prove that a gun already sold by an FFL to private person A wasn't sold/given to private person B? You can't. Expect Universal Background Check 2.0 or some regulatory scheme to register guns.

 

[Tom Servo]

I think I already know this but can somebody explain simply why registration of all guns is necessary for universal background checks to be enforceable.

There's simply no other way to prove whether or not a check has been done. Trust me, they are NOT going to let something this important to them ride on the honor system.

Frankly, that's been the intention all along. They swore up and down that the Brady Act wasn't a backdoor to a registry. Then they threw a fit (and still do) when the Tiahrt Amendment forbade them from using the NICS data to establish a registry.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There were actually TWO background check bills passed by the House, and it appears that HR 8 isn't the one we need to worry about, so much as HR 1446: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1446?q={"search":["hr+1446"]}&s=3&r=1

I'm not saying that HR 8 is good -- but don't lose sight of other bills.

 

[44 AMP]

I think I already know this but can somebody explain simply why registration of all guns is necessary for universal background checks to be enforceable.

The simple answer is because that's the way THEY WANT IT, and that ALL we're being offered.

They NEED a registration of all guns, so they can answer the question "PROOVE you had a background check done ON THAT GUN",, which to my mind is a question that should NOT be asked.

Their entire concept of tying the background check to the specific gun (by ser#) is only needed if the desired end result is to create a registration list of guns. (Along with the repulsive base concept of assuming guilt and having to have the gun owner prove their innocence ).

They could run the check only on the person, but they don't want that, and won't accept that when we offer it instead of their system.

Note that, right now, and since it started, the Fed "instant" check has never required the gun serial#. The only gun information used is "handgun or long gun" (because of the age requirements) and nothing more.

The current check is on the records OF THE BUYER and has NOTHING to do with the gun being purchased.

This is not what the gun control people want. They WANT a system that includes the firearm data (ser#) so that they might compile ownership list from that (no matter what other laws may say they WILL try to do that IF they have the information in the systems).

Personally I detest the idea that I may have to prove when I didn't break the law. That's not how it's supposed to work in the US.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The simple answer is because that's the way THEY WANT IT, and that ALL we're being offered.

They NEED a registration of all guns, so they can answer the question "PROOVE you had a background check done ON THAT GUN",, which to my mind is a question that should NOT be asked.

Their entire concept of tying the background check to the specific gun (by ser#) is only needed if the desired end result is to create a registration list of guns. (Along with the repulsive base concept of assuming guilt and having to have the gun owner prove their innocence ).

They could run the check only on the person, but they don't want that, and won't accept that when we offer it instead of their system.

Note that, right now, and since it started, the Fed "instant" check has never required the gun serial#. The only gun information used is "handgun or long gun" (because of the age requirements) and nothing more.

The current check is on the records OF THE BUYER and has NOTHING to do with the gun being purchased.

This is not what the gun control people want. They WANT a system that includes the firearm data (ser#) so that they might compile ownership list from that (no matter what other laws may say they WILL try to do that IF they have the information in the systems).

Personally I detest the idea that I may have to prove when I didn't break the law. That's not how it's supposed to work in the US.

The flaws in this system have already been playing out in Pennsylvania for a number of years. Pennsylvania requires that purchases through FFLs be reported to the State Police, who enter the information into a centralized database. However, Pennsylvania allows people who move into the state to bring guns with them and not register them, and there is no requirement to register firearms that were legally owned prior to the enactment of the current law. (I don't remember the law in PA regarding private transfers.)

Suffice it to say that there are a LOT of guns in Pennsylvania -- including handguns -- that aren't in the State Police database. What happens all too often is that a police officer will find someone carrying a gun (it may be for something as simple as the officer temporarily disarming a driver during a traffic stop) and run the gun against the database. Often, the gun isn't in the database, so -- even though it may have been legally owned for twenty years -- Officer Friendly confiscates the gun. Not because it has been reported as stolen, but simply because the legal owner isn't carrying the receipt around in his wallet.

Pennsylvania state law (as I understand it) prohibits the State Police from creating a firearms registry. Cases over this database confiscation issue have gone to court, and the PA courts have ruled that because it doesn't include all firearms -- it's a "database" and not a "registry," and therefore not prohibited.

Talk about splitting hairs!