U.S. House passes bill expanding background checks on gun sales

[InterestedBystander]

Full story at link. Think there was a post on HR 8 before but I cant find it.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/431855-house-passes-bill-expanding-background-checks-on-gun-sales

 

...The House passed a bipartisan bill that would require all gun sellers to conduct background checks on firearm sales in a 240-190 vote on Wednesday.

 

While the bill spearheaded by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.) had five Republican co-sponsors, it passed largely along party lines, with just eight GOP lawmakers voting in favor of the measure. Two Democrats opted to vote against it.

 

The bill was amended at the eleventh hour after Democrats failed to whip enough votes against a Republican-backed motion to recommit that would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified when immigrants who do not have legal status attempt to purchase a firearm.

 

The legislation aims to expand requirements for background checks on private sales including those made at gun shows, on the internet or through classified ads.

 

Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are mandated to conduct background checks on those looking to purchase a gun.

 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been a vocal advocate for gun control, appeared in the House chamber for the vote.

 

It marks the most significant gun control vote in years after the Senate failed in 2013 to pass similar bipartisan legislation to expand the federal background check system.

 

Proponents praised the legislation as a necessary step in preventing future acts of violence, though it is expected to face an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Senate.

 

There's no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said during debate on the floor ahead of the vote.

 

By circumventing the background check process. H.R. 8 would close this dangerous loophole and save many, many lives.

 

But critics say it fails to address the problems that have led to mass shootings in the past, arguing it makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights....

 

...The lower chamber is expected to take up a second gun-related bill Thursday, which would lengthen the review period on gun sales. It is also expected to pass along party lines and then face tough odds in the Senate....

[FF1984]

"Expanded background checks"...it's pronounced "gun registration". Look to recent events in California for an indication for what comes after that.

[Lou]

Illinois currently has the equivalent of this law and just look how successful it’s been on reducing violent crime.

 

 

<sarcasm mode now off>

[357]

Bloomberg's laws by Democrats in Congress this time making criminals out of law abiding citizens. It's about pushing his agenda not safety.

 

Representative Steve Scalise was on Laura Ingraham last night and said they want registration and confiscation is the next step and Democrats wouldn't let him speak about the bill.

 

https://youtu.be/LsRUbgdmLTc?t=54m52s

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/65332

[Bird76Mojo]

I watched the C-Span coverage during this debate. It was exactly what you'd expect.

Some things of note:

Dems floating this as a common sense measure that would heal all wounds and make our country safer than it's ever been. One even talked about getting rid of all guns as the only solution, but said that he knew that would never happen.

The democrats stated that even though states like California and Illinois have the toughest gun control laws in the nation, the violence in those states was due to other states not having federal background checks on all gun transactions.

There were some very good testimonies from various Republican members, and they spoke calmly, with a real world view of this bill.

Democrats however, were very loud and many raised their voice and even hammered their fists on the podium (Mr. Cummings) akin to Hitler giving a speech..

The one glaring thing I did notice was a clear lack of butts in seats, for whatever reason..


House Republican whip - Steve Scalise openly admitted (on camera) that he's proud to work with the NRA in opposition to this bill, which surprised me. I figure it's better to openly admit working with the NRA rather than someone digging up that info on him to make him appear crooked.. Although Twatter users are already shaming him for NRA connections. He claimed one could face up to a $100,000 fine, while the democrats rebutted saying that the fine would only be $1000


The democrats blocked an amendment to notify ICE when an illegal alien tries to buy a gun.
The democrats blocked an amendment to replace all of the language in the bill with a national concealed carry reciprocity. (lol nice trolling repubs 10/10)


https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1100770175480156160

[cybermgk]

"Expanded background checks"...it's pronounced "gun registration". Look to recent events in California for an indication for what comes after that.

 

in and of itself though. How does it mean registration? The bill is ba enough in itself making you a felon to loan a gun without a bc. But, by itself how does it mesn registration?

[357]

 

"Expanded background checks"...it's pronounced "gun registration". Look to recent events in California for an indication for what comes after that.

in and of itself though. How does it mean registration? The bill is ba enough in itself making you a felon to loan a gun without a bc. But, by itself how does it mesn registration?

The government keeping a record of all gun transactions even when you loan out a gun is registration.

[defaultdotxbe]

Illinois currently has the equivalent of this law and just look how successful it’s been on reducing violent crime.

 

 

<sarcasm mode now off>

IL's law is a bit better than this, as at least in IL you can avoid having to go to the dealer, filling out a 4473, and paying a transfer fee

 

Of course this bill would change that, requiring us to go to a dealer as well. Combined with the dealer licensing in IL I expect transfer fees to skyrocket as dealers try to cover the new costs

[8x57]

This is like when the Republicans were going to repeal Obamacare. They were happy to pass it a half dozen different times when they only controlled part of the government. Once they had the house, senate, and prez, all of a sudden they couldn't find the votes...

 

Remember that 98% of the time these people are just playing games to pander to their base in hopes of winning the next election. Once it comes time to actually govern, they all of a sudden lose their appetite for issues that only matter to their base.

[C0untZer0]

When we have Democrats opposing an amendment to notify ICE when an illegal alien tries to buy a firearm, you know its not about safety.

[FF1984]

 

"Expanded background checks"...it's pronounced "gun registration". Look to recent events in California for an indication for what comes after that.

in and of itself though. How does it mean registration? The bill is ba enough in itself making you a felon to loan a gun without a bc. But, by itself how does it mesn registration?

 

 

A law requires enforcement. An FFL is currently required to conduct a background check. How does the government know that these checks are being conducted to ensure the FFL is following the law? Records. Now expand that to anytime a transfer takes place anywhere. Records now include every single gun owner and what they possess. AKA a gun registry. It can't be effectively be enforced without the government having a record to ensure the law is being followed.

[fxdpntc]

*****

 

http://youtu.be/wxjNbHjrCME

[G214me]

 

 

 

The democrats stated that even though states like California and Illinois have the toughest gun control laws in the nation, the violence in those states was due to other states not having federal background checks on all gun transactions.

 

 

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1100770175480156160

 

Whenever I hear this garbage I always ask.... " If that's true wouldn't those states have just as much or even more violence ?" the puppets that say that can never seem to find an answer.

[G214me]

President Trump already said this will be vetoed if it makes it to his desk. I doubt it has a chance in the Senate.

[defaultdotxbe]

 

 

"Expanded background checks"...it's pronounced "gun registration". Look to recent events in California for an indication for what comes after that.

in and of itself though. How does it mean registration? The bill is ba enough in itself making you a felon to loan a gun without a bc. But, by itself how does it mesn registration?

 

 

A law requires enforcement. An FFL is currently required to conduct a background check. How does the government know that these checks are being conducted to ensure the FFL is following the law? Records. Now expand that to anytime a transfer takes place anywhere. Records now include every single gun owner and what they possess. AKA a gun registry. It can't be effectively be enforced without the government having a record to ensure the law is being followed.

 

FFLs are required to keep the 4473 (record of the transfer) and when they close or otherwise lose their license they have to transfer those records to the ATF, who retain them forever. So going forward they can know exactly who owns exactly what guns by tracking them through the 4473s

 

Sure its not as convenient as a direct registry, but what about all those calls to digitize the records and make them searchable? A registry by any other name...

[cybermgk]

 

 

"Expanded background checks"...it's pronounced "gun registration". Look to recent events in California for an indication for what comes after that.

in and of itself though. How does it mean registration? The bill is ba enough in itself making you a felon to loan a gun without a bc. But, by itself how does it mesn registration?

 

 

A law requires enforcement. An FFL is currently required to conduct a background check. How does the government know that these checks are being conducted to ensure the FFL is following the law? Records. Now expand that to anytime a transfer takes place anywhere. Records now include every single gun owner and what they possess. AKA a gun registry. It can't be effectively be enforced without the government having a record to ensure the law is being followed.

 

I don't follow the logic. Currently, they DON'T know the FFL is following the law, unless they audit them, and find a lack of paper trail in their records.

 

I sell to you, we go to an FFL. One of us pays FFL to run the check, the same check you go through now, when you buy from that FFL. Said background check has no information on what weapon is being sold. Just like the FFL, I have to keep a record of that sale and BC, in case you go and run amok with it, so I can show I that did follow the law. FFLS do not transmit these sales records to the ATF, they are just required to maintain them. No reason to be different for private sales. Only requirement would be to maintain the record of the sale.

 

Now, if you mean, that once passed, they come back and say, it's not working, because we have no idea who owns what right now, and then say they need a registry, that's a different point. Or did they include that in the bill already? There is a more than good argument against that. Even if all guns were magically registered and in a DB, it still doesn't help the ATF insure a BC is being done on ANY sales, .

[Bird76Mojo]

FFLs are required to keep the 4473 (record of the transfer) and when they close or otherwise lose their license they have to transfer those records to the ATF, who retain them forever. So going forward they can know exactly who owns exactly what guns by tracking them through the 4473s

 

 

 

 

Sure its not as convenient as a direct registry, but what about all those calls to digitize the records and make them searchable? A registry by any other name...

 

Don't forget, the BATFE is, or was, converting all of those records in to a digital database the last I heard. I read something about that at least a year ago. Maybe more.

 

Granted, it'll probably take them a decade to do so, due to the warehouse being so full of records.

[anonymous too]

I don't follow the logic. Currently, they DON'T know the FFL is following the law, unless they audit them, and find a lack of paper trail in their records.

 

 

The FFL i used to work for had a yearly audit. It usually lasted 2 weeks. So that's a 40 hr inspection. The dealer never had an infraction, but always got another "rule" to follow..

 

Said background check has no information on what weapon is being sold

 

 

It asks for type: Handgun, Long Gun, or both. The background check doesn't know how many or any specifics.

[cybermgk]

 

 

 

 

 

FFLs are required to keep the 4473 (record of the transfer) and when they close or otherwise lose their license they have to transfer those records to the ATF, who retain them forever. So going forward they can know exactly who owns exactly what guns by tracking them through the 4473s

 

Sure its not as convenient as a direct registry, but what about all those calls to digitize the records and make them searchable? A registry by any other name...

 

Not true. Not unless ALL FFLs, active, as well, are required to transfer them to the ATF. I buy, a weapon from FFL 1. They retire, and send info to ATF, So ATF records have me buying whatever. I go and sell it to you, and this idiot law is in place, and FFL2 handles it. ATF doesn't have a record of it transferring to you, until FFL2 retires. Lets say that doesn't happen for 30 years. LOT of transferring of that gun can happen. Additionally, the FFL only has to retain them for 20 years. So, when they retire, or close etc, ATF onlt gets last 20 years worth. Again, only way it's a 100% registry, is if FFLs are forced to immediately transfer them upon completion of sale.

 

And, no, I'm not happy the Fed has what it does have now, let alone any more.

[cybermgk]

 

I don't follow the logic. Currently, they DON'T know the FFL is following the law, unless they audit them, and find a lack of paper trail in their records.

 

 

The FFL i used to work for had a yearly audit. It usually lasted 2 weeks. So that's a 40 hr inspection. The dealer never had an infraction, but always got another "rule" to follow..

 

Said background check has no information on what weapon is being sold

 

 

It asks for type: Handgun, Long Gun, or both. The background check doesn't know how many or any specifics.

 

No FOrm 4473 has that. Again, does the bill require that a form 4473 be done and stored by the FFL, on a private sale, or just a background check be done to the NICS system via the FFL? They are not the same.

[steveTA84]

From the White House

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/saphr8hr1112hr_20190225.pdf

 

The Administration opposes H.R. 8 because it would impose burdensome requirements on certain firearm transactions. H.R. 8 would require that certain transfers, loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of firearms. H.R. 8 would therefore impose permanent record-keeping requirements and limitless fees on these everyday transactions. H.R. 8 contains very narrow exemptions from these requirements, and these exemptions would not sufficiently protect the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms. For example, unless an exemption applies, both the act of leaving a weapon in the temporary care of a neighbor while traveling and the act of later retrieving that weapon would require processing by a licensed entity under H.R. 8. Also, unless such an exemption applies, domestic violence victims would be prohibited from borrowing a firearm for self- defense without first having the transaction go through such a licensed entity. The extensive regulation required by H.R. 8 is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms.

 

By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm. For this reason, the Administration opposes the legislation. H.R. 1112 would require a federally licensed firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer that initiates a mandatory background check on an individual seeking to purchase a firearm to wait ten business days on results before processing the transaction. If the Federal Government fails to complete the background check within this window of time, the individual seeking to purchase the firearm may petition the Government for permission to proceed with the transfer. Under H.R. 1112, the licensed entity would be required to wait an additional ten business days after such a petition is filed before it is allowed to proceed with processing the transaction. Currently, such background checks are considered invalid 30 calendar days after the date the licensed entity initiated them.

 

As the bill is written, therefore, an individual must file their petition on the earliest day possible. If they fail to do so, H.R. 1112 would effectively prohibit some firearms purchases from being processed because the initiated background check would be considered invalid before the end of the second ten-business-day waiting period. Allowing the Federal Government to restrict firearms purchases through bureaucratic delay would undermine the Second Amendment’s guarantee that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill.

[ChicagoRonin70]

The bill was amended at the eleventh hour after Democrats failed to whip enough votes against a Republican-backed motion to recommit that would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified when immigrants who do not have legal status attempt to purchase a firearm.

 

Does this mean that the bill actually contains this duty to notify when illegal immigrants try to purchase a firearm? I saw up higher on this thread that wasn't included. But this quote seems to indicate otherwise.

[steveTA84]

The bill was amended at the eleventh hour after Democrats failed to whip enough votes against a Republican-backed motion to recommit that would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified when immigrants who do not have legal status attempt to purchase a firearm.

 

Does this mean that the bill actually contains this duty to notify when illegal immigrants try to purchase a firearm? I saw up higher on this thread that wasn't included. But this quote seems to indicate otherwise.

I believe it does

[Bird76Mojo]

This shows ZERO amendments: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/amendments

But I'm not the best at understanding all of this either.

[Bird76Mojo]

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/27/698512397/house-passes-most-significant-gun-bill-in-2-decades


...aaaaand the republicans are folding again. Like a wet paper towel. AS USUAL.

If they don't support it, then why even bother to add amendments? It's not like they're appeasing the democrats by doing so, and they're sure not appealing to their base either, as long as they're supporting this bill in any way.



"Just before the bill's final passage, a handful of Democrats broke ranks and joined Republicans in getting an amendment added. It requires federal immigration officials to be contacted in the event someone in the U.S. illegally tries to buy a gun."

[G214me]

When we have Democrats opposing an amendment to notify ICE when an illegal alien tries to buy a firearm, you know its not about safety.

Bingo !!! They revealed their game plan with this. the whole thing is about knowing where to go to confiscate firearms should they get control of Congress and the White House. They're building the foundation for the police state / leftist utopia they dream of. The ICE notification threw them for a loop and they must pander to the illegals and more importantly the LWW that want illegals to over run the country, those loons are their base. There is no other reason they would oppose that amendment to the bill.

[357]

 

When we have Democrats opposing an amendment to notify ICE when an illegal alien tries to buy a firearm, you know its not about safety.

 

Bingo !!! They revealed their game plan with this. the whole thing is about knowing where to go to confiscate firearms should they get control of Congress and the White House. They're building the foundation for the police state / leftist utopia they dream of. The ICE notification threw them for a loop and they must pander to the illegals and more importantly the LWW that want illegals to over run the country, those loons are their base. There is no other reason they would oppose that amendment to the bill.

They've been building the foundation for a police state since 2001. Democrats and the cabal are building the foundation for gun confiscations.

 

Joe Biden said "and the wave still continues. It's not going to stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, one of the things I think we can be most proud of."

 

https://youtu.be/PtIi8QR5Mzs

[anonymous too]

No FOrm 4473 has that. Again, does the bill require that a form 4473 be done and stored by the FFL, on a private sale, or just a background check be done to the NICS system via the FFL? They are not the same.

 

The FTIP system we use in IL asks if the transaction is for a handgun, long gun, or both. Never used NICS, but it asks too and it's part of the information never destroyed. IL has kept all of it's FTIP information. If you made a purchase from a dealer in IL, the state has a general idea of how many firearms you have in your possession. They don't know how exactly many or the specific make, model, and serial number.

 

Difficult to read. But type of firearm transferred is under the yellow highlighted sections.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year_by_state_type.pdf/view

 

The exact firearm(s) transferred are listed in Section D of the 5573 by the dealer.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

 

The NICS system purges personal information on clean background checks every 24 hrs. IL is a Point of Contact state and due to state law it is allowed to keep the information obtained by a FTIP check.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71321

[jim123]

This is like when the Republicans were going to repeal Obamacare. They were happy to pass it a half dozen different times when they only controlled part of the government. Once they had the house, senate, and prez, all of a sudden they couldn't find the votes...

 

Remember that 98% of the time these people are just playing games to pander to their base in hopes of winning the next election. Once it comes time to actually govern, they all of a sudden lose their appetite for issues that only matter to their base.

Trump has been blocked by rinos and libt@rds every single time he tried to do something he promised to if he became president.

[G214me]

 

 

When we have Democrats opposing an amendment to notify ICE when an illegal alien tries to buy a firearm, you know its not about safety.

Bingo !!! They revealed their game plan with this. the whole thing is about knowing where to go to confiscate firearms should they get control of Congress and the White House. They're building the foundation for the police state / leftist utopia they dream of. The ICE notification threw them for a loop and they must pander to the illegals and more importantly the LWW that want illegals to over run the country, those loons are their base. There is no other reason they would oppose that amendment to the bill.

They've been building the foundation for a police state since 2001. Democrats and the cabal are building the foundation for gun confiscations.

 

Joe Biden said "and the wave still continues. It's not going to stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, one of the things I think we can be most proud of."

 

https://youtu.be/PtIi8QR5Mzs

 

Joe Biden does a nice job of showing us what a threat to our rights he really is.