House Passes Universal Background Checks Bill

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bobinbusan

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages
    2,620
    Points
    38
    Location
    Santa Rosa MILTON FL.
    Wondering how this will work out??????

    WASHINGTON ― With Democrats back in control, the House passed the most significant piece of gun control legislation in more than two decades Wednesday.

    By a vote of 240-190, the House approved a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales in the United States. Currently, only licensed firearm dealers have to perform background checks, and unlicensed dealers ― such as those at gun shows ― can sell a gun without going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

    Eight Republicans joined all but two Democrats in support of the bill, and the measure will now go to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has not committed to bringing the bill up for a vote, and it likely doesn’t have the 60 senators it needs to make it to a final vote.

    But the bill passing the House Wednesday marks a significant turn in its own right. The last gun control measure to pass the House was in 1994, the sweeping Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that banned a number of semi-automatic weapons. And though Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass other gun control measures when Republicans controlled the House ― Democrats actually first introduced the legislation as a response to an attack on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) ― they were unable to get up-or-down votes on a bill in recent years.

    But support in Congress has been mounting for stricter gun laws. While the new Democratic majority in the House made passage of the background checks bill possible, the eight Republicans who supported the bill Wednesday show how the gun issue isn’t falling as neatly along partisan lines.

    Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) actually co-sponsored the background checks bill with Democrat Mike Thompson of California, and public support for universal background checks has been growing with each mass shooting. A Quinnipiac poll conducted at the end of 2017 showed that 97 percent of respondents supported background checks for all gun buyers.

    But Republicans still found ways to oppose the bill, saying the legislation wouldn’t do much to address gun violence and was a broadside against Second Amendment rights.

    Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), a former police officer, recounted a story Wednesday about his getting shot in the head while off-duty, and he spoke against the bill because he wanted to protect gun owner rights and said there were better ways to address gun violence.

    Another shooting victim, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), spoke in opposition Wednesday because of new regulations preventing someone from lending a gun to a friend. He said the provisions on lending a gun to a hunting partner were so confusing that you might have to also bring your attorney on the hunt.

    And another Republican ― Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) ― said this legislation wouldn’t prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. “Criminals are going to do what they already do ― make illegal transfers of firearms,” Byrne said. But, he charged, it would prevent, say, someone from letting their cousin borrow their gun. (The legislation actually includes exemptions on background checks for family members and “transfers for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.”)

    Republicans were also successful in getting Democrats to adopt a motion to recommit that would notify the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency when immigrants without legal status attempt to purchase a gun. That motion was adopted 220-209, with 26 Democrats supporting the GOP motion. The language was quickly added and the vote on the underlying bill still proceeded as scheduled.

    While this first piece of gun legislation wouldn’t affect a significant number of firearm sales, Democrats looked at this bill as long-awaited action after so many mass shootings and moments of silence.

    As Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on the floor Wednesday, “The moments of silence have not worked.”

    And while Democrats readily admitted more action would be needed, Democrats lauded the legislation as something that would break the normal pattern in Congress.

    “This is not a moment of silence,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said. “This is not a sit-in.”

    That sit-in, which came in response to the Orlando night club shooting in 2016, lasted for 11 hours, with Democrats seizing the floor to try and force action on gun control.

    But there was no action, and gun control fell by the wayside.

    One of the leaders of that sit-in, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), praised the legislation as overdue action. “We feel your pain,” Lewis said. “We heard your cries. And today we are going to answer. Today. Now.”

    This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Word on the News this morning was: f they (2) got to the President, they would be VETOED = DOA. Still, nothings over till the fat lady sings (and the dems/libs exhaust all court options). Lol
     

    Welldoya

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages
    5,143
    Points
    113
    Location
    Pace
    It sounds like, if it passed, it would effectively halt private sales. They would all have to go thru an FFL unless they set up some way that a private citizen can call in to check a buyer's background.
     

    stage20

    Master
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    88   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2018
    Messages
    8,081
    Points
    113
    Location
    pensacola
    What does this change for private sales?
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    One will: With very few exceptions, ALL other changes of possession (loan a gun to a friend) sales of privately owned firearms between private citizens would require that transaction be done through a FFL ($?? ). It mandates a NICS check ($5) for the recipient of the firearm, waiting period changes from 3 to 20 (a 10 days you can petition the U.S. A.G.), after 20 days it becomes the FFLs decision if he/she "wants to" complete the transaction and deliver the firearm. Note: if Transaction is stopped, I bet another NICS and Wait eriod apply to private seller to get the gun returned. Fees for NICS not refundable and probably not the FFLs either. The COLLATERAL thing it does is put a paper trail of who owned the firearm previously and who now owns it by make, model, ser#. etc.... These records are avail to LE anytime and when the business closes down these records go to the ATF Archive and ultimately converted into an easier to search "Records File".
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Time Out! I'm not pointing fingers (collateral damage) but we gun owners and 2A supporters should damn well know the details of what's being pushed by the anti-gun group/politicians: especially when its been proposed as a Bill! You need to voice your opinion BEFORE it hits the first voting Stage and if enough heat is raise it may never come up for a Vote. Ignorance and silence is Consent and the gun grabbers will push their agenda while you assume sombody else will cover my interests if its important.

    End Rant!
     

    Little Jack

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages
    4,957
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton
    We've discussed this before....

    This will create an interesting market for "pre UCB" guns. Minus the ban states that have registries already, the gov doesn't know where all the guns are. There's no way, minus full registration, to enforce this unless you have proof/evidence/video etc of someone selling the gun after the law went into effect because they couldn't prove you didn't have the gun before the new law. At some point based on age, time etc it will be easier and easier to keep track but you've got 100s of millions of firearms already out there. I wonder what it would do to "new" gun sales.

    I love the longer waiting periods. Especially when I KNOW the person buying the gun has several already.... usually ones that I've sold them.

    Just making it worse for the 99.99999% of gun owners that aren't the ass holes.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    ATF is pretty good at making "buys" from people they target. Problem here is that there won't be a ready pool of criminal informants trying to get their own beef dropped/reduced. ATF will tag some: first to set a public example then periodically to reinforce the "criminal deterrent" it allegedly creates.

    They will never tag a Felon with this Law. Just like the possessor of a unregistered NFA item can't be Charged for not registering it! The Gov forcing you to register an illegal unregistered NFA Item would cause self incrimination: unconstitutional. A Felon can't be forced to attempt to transfer through a FFL either: if seller, its an admission of "Felon in possession of a firearm"; if buyer: a. They lie on Form 4473 which is a an Existing Crime or b. they admit their a prohibited person on the Form but there is no point to it as it's an instant denial.

    But you can' just give a .38 revolver to a girlfriend who has a Ex that keeps pounding on her doors and windows, damaging her property, while threatening her even if he's under a Restraining Order!
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    I was explaining to a family member why these kinds of bills are horrible in the long-term. I honestly don't understand why people are so trusting of the government and fail to look for the angle. These bills lay the foundation for sweeping gun restrictions.

    This law is not the first, but it's one of many of the "thousand paper cuts" that will kill this Country.

    - Unenforceable, unless caught in the act, so now LE agencies "need a system" to confirm firearm ownership. ---> Registration of firearms.
    - Huge increase in access to NICS "necessitates" system upgrades and extra personnel, therefore the fees "must" be increased. ---> Cost prohibitive fees, with no regulatory mechanism. (Imagine if the ATF could rewrite the NFA and increase the tax stamp price?)
    - The database for these background checks is defined as what exactly? What's the new criteria for being "allowed/worthy" to own a firearm? Will it be broadened to include No-Fly Lists and mental health records? If you can't see the Pandora's Box in that, how about regular medical records? (Patient has a possible brain tumor. Chemical imbalance and requires hormone treatment. Post-operation pain meds prescription? Terminal cancer? Who gets to "decide" to flag you as "shouldn't own a gun"?)
    - Finally, if LE can determine you skirted this background check, you goto JAIL. How would they know? Let's see: routine traffic stop, you have a CWL, and they "need to make sure your gun isn't stolen" (cause they have a registry now, remember?). How about the easy one: gun range "spot checks". You know the accent to play this line in your head: "Papers, please. Hmm, your papers, zey are not in order."...

    All that, and it still won't prevent a single crime. It'll actually CAUSE even More crime.

    Criminals won't even bother with straw purchases (have the kid with no criminal record in the gang do the gun buying) because the NICS fees will be ridiculous. Simply steal the guns from now on. Some previously law-abiding citizens will skirt these Unconstitutional regulations, and, therefore, technically commit the crime of non-compliance. If discovered, they add to an already over-burdened "justice" system.

    I'll say it again: ANYONE who supports these BS proposals is supporting the downfall of this Country.
     

    Big Shrek

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages
    986
    Points
    63
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    It sounds like, if it passed, it would effectively halt private sales. They would all have to go thru an FFL unless they set up some way that a private citizen can call in to check a buyer's background.

    Yeah, halting private sales did so well with moonshine, weed & the other drugs ;)
    People gonna trade & sell as they wish.
    All any stupid law would do is drive it back underground, and in the South,
    that's just a way of life. Yankees would be totally screwed tho ;)
     

    MauserLarry

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages
    1,405
    Points
    113
    Location
    Crestview Florida
    " and in the South, that's just a way of life."

    I just love the way that sounds to my Southern ears!
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566

    Not a personal attack; just some irony.

    Yes, but amendments have been added to make constitutional unconstitutional, example; plotting overthrow of gov. Then we've got multiple laws enacted/enforced for decades that further infringe and restrict. So, I guess the question is, is constitutional constitutional, is constitutional unconstitutional, or is unconstitutional constitutional? I guess we need government to figure that out. See the trap? I do.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    "Constitutional" Gov will always build defenses to isolate and protect their seat of power. Citizen majority will always have the authority to remove them from power administratively or as a last resort: physically. A few disgruntled citizens does not a Revolution make, no matter the grievances. Thousands or Millions of Citizens in open Revolt of unreconciled tyranny is different dynamic and not without merit or precedence.
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    "Constitutional" Gov will always build defenses to isolate and protect their seat of power. Citizen majority will always have the authority to remove them from power administratively or as a last resort: physically. A few disgruntled citizens does not a Revolution make, no matter the grievances. Thousands or Millions of Citizens in open Revolt of unreconciled tyranny is different dynamic and not without merit or precedence.

    Very true. I'm more concerned about the data collection and preemptive strikes against law abiding gun owners than any their of defense plans. Way too many view/support these actions as harmless, for safety, or even valiant if one wears a a badge while carrying them out.
     
    Top Bottom