Republicans Help House Pass Bills Expanding Gun Background Checks
8 Republicans voted for HR8. 2 Republicans voted for HR 1446.
The House passed H.R. 8, requiring a background check for every firearm sale, 227-203. Overall, you have to go through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) to “transfer possession” of firearms.
Eight Republicans, yes, eight, voted yes. One Democrat voted no.
Only two Republicans helped push through H.R .1446, which expanded background checks.
HR 8
You can thank these Republicans:
- Vern Buchanan (FL)
- Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
- Andrew Garbarino (NY)
- Carlos Gimenez (FL)
- Adam Kinzinger (IL)
- María Elvira Salazar (FL)
- Chris Smith (NJ)
- Fred Upton (MI)
The language “transfer possession” piqued my interest. Of course, the left will say that it means “purchase,” but we all know how the government uses vague terms to apply the law to anything they want:
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(aa) (1) (A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (t).
“(B) Upon taking possession of a firearm under subparagraph (A), a licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensee to the unlicensed transferee.
“(C) If a transfer of a firearm described in subparagraph (A) will not be completed for any reason after a licensee takes possession of the firearm (including because the transfer of the firearm to, or receipt of the firearm by, the transferee would violate this chapter), the return of the firearm to the transferor by the licensee shall not constitute the transfer of a firearm for purposes of this chapter.
So does it matter if someone loaned you the gun and the purpose?
The bill has some exceptions. Just some:
- Family members, including domestic partner, spouse, siblings, step-children, grandparents, etc.
- Executor, administrator, trustee of the person’s estate or will.
- Transfer “to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, family, household members, or others, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse”
- Temporary transfer if the firearm owner does not believe the loanee would use it in a crime (like shooting range or hunting)
HR 1446
The House passed HR 1446 219-210. Republicans Fitzpatrick and Smith voted for this one as well.
HR 1446 expanded background checks to at least 10 days from three:
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
“(ii) in the event the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section—
“(I) not fewer than 10 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) has elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section, and the other person has submitted, electronically through a website established by the Attorney General or by first-class mail, a petition for review which—
“(aa) certifies that such other person has no reason to believe that such other person is prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm; and
“(bb) requests that the system respond to the contact referred to in subparagraph (A) within 10 business days after the date the petition was submitted (or, if the petition is submitted by first-class mail, the date the letter containing the petition is postmarked); and
“(II) 10 business days have elapsed since the other person so submitted the petition, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section; and”;
The bill also allows the attorney general to develop the form needed to make a petition, put it on the internet, and acknowledge the people with a “notice of receipt.”
The attorney general will also “respond on an expedited basis to any such petition” he received from people.
Yes, the government can extend the waiting period:
“(8) (A) If, after 3 business days have elapsed since the licensee initially contacted the system about a firearm transaction, the system notifies the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would not violate subsection (g) or (n), the licensee may continue to rely on that notification for the longer of—
“(i) an additional 25 calendar days after the licensee receives the notification; or
“(ii) 30 calendar days after the date of the initial contact.
“(B) If such other person has met the requirements of paragraph (1)(B)(ii) before the system destroys the records related to the firearm transaction, the licensee may continue to rely on such other person having met the requirements for an additional 25 calendar days after the date such other person first met the requirements.”.
The Senate
I doubt the Senate will find 60 votes to pass these bills. Undoubtedly, the Democrats will push Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to give them 51 votes to pass it through budget reconciliation.
I’d say they should worry about Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, too, but she might support it since she is from Arizona due to Gabby Giffords. Oh, yeah. Giffords’ husband is the other Arizona senator.
It really might fall on Manchin’s shoulders.
Of course, we all know the Democrats want to end the filibuster. Democrats have started brewing ideas to get around Manchin’s crazy idea of bringing in the other side on issues.
The Senate is split 50-50, but the Democrats have the tie-breaking vote in Vice President Kamala Harris.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If they end the filibuster – we will end up with a one-party state.
Since they know the push-back will be severe, they will stuff all the radical legislation through that they can. They will surely use this window of opportunity to (1) add 2 new very liberal states and (2) pack the SCOTUS with liberal-minded jurors who have an expansive, modern-day, interpretation of the constitution. God helps us all if they go down this road.
Then, there will be two choices:
1 Capitulation
2 Civil war.
Despite all the posturing on the right, it will likely be 1.
There is a third option: economic collapse. The dirty secret of the Soviet Union and Communist China is that they depended/still depend on Western capitalism to keep themselves afloat. That means the US cutting deals with them that keep the oligarchs in power but are ruinous for America.
After all the compliance with the destruction of peoples businesses, isolation amd mask wearing
Don’t bet on more than a handful of people to step up to the plate
We are all sheep now
RINOs (most of the elected GOP) are great at posturing. Actually doing anything? Not so.
(Looking at you Lindsey Graham)
Apparently the do not understand that P ed off people do not have to reside in their district to express their displeasure and wreck election havoc.
2022 will be coming very slowly.
“ Of course, we all know the Democrats want to end the filibuster. Democrats have started brewing ideas to get around Manchin’s crazy idea of bringing in the other side on issues.”
Manchin will vote to eliminate the filibuster. Same for court packing. He is an Anthony Kennedy-style “swing vote”, which means he hems and haws a lot before veering hard Left when the vote comes.
This one seems solid enough. Any loan is good, so long as you can say in good faith that you don’t believe the person you’re lending it to is a criminal. Which is why you trust him not to steal your very expensive tool.
And I don’t see how they can possibly include this in the reconciliation measure.
The expansion of the waiting period from 3 days to 10 isn’t ideal, but won’t have much impact since very few people don’t get an answer back within 3 days anyway.
Overall if this passes it won’t be the end of the world. In fact if I thought the other side were operating in good faith I could see myself agreeing to this as a compromise measure. I’d want to know what we got in return, though. But I oppose this because we know from experience that the other side is never acting in good faith, and no concession on our part will ever induce a corresponding spirit on theirs. To them it works like a ratchet, always moving towards them. That’s why I’m against any compromise with them, no matter how acceptable it appears on its own merits.
First of all, almost all background checks are “instant”, producing a response within a few minutes. The current federal law requires that a response be received within 3 days or the applicant is considered to have passed the federal background check.
Second, this law is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because so few firearms are purchased, by criminals, through private sales by law abiding people that the number is insignificant. However, what it will do is require a person to go to a FFL holder, pay for him to make application for the background check as well as pay for the background check itself to sell or permanently transfer a firearm to a trusted friend or neighbor.
Third, this law, as every other law which restricts the ownership or possession of a firearm, is a violation of the language of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
Yes, that’s what I said; very few people don’t get an answer within 3 days, so extending it to 10 days will have very little impact. It’s not good, but not terrible.
Of course it is. That goes without saying. But it’s not terribly harmful, so if the other side were acting in good faith it could be an acceptable sacrifice in return for some concession on their side. But they’re not, so giving them anything, however small, is a bad idea.
Yes, that’s a damned nuisance and a waste of money, but again, not terrible. If I were negotiating over such a proposal I’d say it’s acceptable provided you add a requirement that all FFLs must provide this service and putting a reasonable cap on the fee they can charge. I believe there is at least one state that does this (I think New Mexico?) Again, if the other side were honest this is something our side could live with in return for some gain.
I don’t agree. So long as the restrictions remain mere annoyances and don’t become de facto prohibition, the RKBA is not infringed, so the 2A’s language is satisfied. That doesn’t make them a good idea.
“I don’t agree. So long as the restrictions remain mere annoyances and don’t become de facto prohibition, the RKBA is not infringed, so the 2A’s language is satisfied. That doesn’t make them a good idea.”
Unfortunately, for your argument, this is the language of the 2nd Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
The important thing to notice is that it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed.” So, id any law, or other action of the government, either de jure OR de facto prohibit any person from owning or carrying a firearm, then that person’s right to own or possess a firearm is DE FACTO and de jure a violation of the 2nd Amendment and therefor, unconstitutional.
Now, a case can be made for allowing certain restrictions. Restrictions on places such as jails, mental health facilities and even schools can be put in place which would apply to all visitors, not just those with firearms. Public transportation is another matter, however. Certain persons can be prohibited from possessing firearms, and other weapons, based upon their status as as individuals. Minors behavior can be controlled by their guardians. The same is true of those adjudicated as criminals and placed with int a correction facility or program. Criminals are essentially wards of the state, for legal purposes. And, the mentally ill, once ruled incompetent.
But, any law, which states that a competent, adult person, who is not sentenced to the absolute control of the state, may not own or carry a firearm, or other weapon, is a de facto violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Mac, you must have read what I wrote, because you quoted it. But how could you possibly quote “So long as the restrictions remain mere annoyances and don’t become de facto prohibition” and yet reply as if I had not written that? If you are not being deliberately dishonest, then I don’t understand how that is possible. How is it not crystal clear? How could you possibly have failed to understand it? And yet the alternative, that you’re being dishonest, doesn’t make sense either, because if you were going to lie you wouldn’t have cited the very words that contradict you. So I’m just puzzled.
Milhouse,
This what you posted:
‘“I don’t agree. So long as the restrictions remain mere annoyances and don’t become de facto prohibition, the RKBA is not infringed, so the 2A’s language is satisfied. That doesn’t make them a good idea.”’
By its very nature, refusing to allow an adult person to own or possess a firearm, because they fail a background check is de facto an infringement upon that very right. And, that is exactly what these background check laws do. They determine who can and can not own a firearm. This is not a registration law, which would be constitutional, but not a good idea. Registration, would not necessarily infringe upon a person’s right to keep and bear arms.
A restriction on the right to own and carry a firearm is, by definition, infringement upon that right and is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
And what keeps the government from deciding that *all* background checks will now take 9 days to complete? Instant mandatory waiting period for all gun sales.
The exact same thing that keeps the government from deciding that all background checks will now take 2.5 days to complete, and has kept it from so deciding for the past 25 years and more. The vast majority of checks come back right away; why would extending the 3-day window to 10 days change that?
What you said was “most don’t get an answer in three days.” That would include 10 or 20 minutes. It means it takes most more than 3 days to get an answer.
What you meant, Milhouse, is that most purchasers don’t have to wait for three days.
No, David, I said “very few people don’t get an answer within 3 days, so extending it to 10 days will have very little impact”.
That means it it takes most less than 3 days to get an answer; in fact for the vast majority it takes far less, which means they would see no change if the 3-day window were extended to 10, or even 100.
The 3-day window is a safety feature, to prevent the FBI from de facto banning someone for no articulable reason by simply not responding; they know that in 3 days a non-response turns automatically into a “yes”, so they have no incentive to do that. Extending it to 10 reduces that effect, but not by very much. If they don’t like approving someone there’s not much difference between having to approve him in 3 and in 10.
“The expansion of the waiting period from 3 days to 10 isn’t ideal, but won’t have much impact since very few people don’t get an answer back within 3 days anyway.”
Ignores Parkinson’s Law entirely. The reason most people get an answer back within three days is because the current deadline is three days. Make it ten days, and guess what happens?
That is not true. The vast majority of people get an answer within 3 minutes, not 3 days. And most of the rest get one well within the 3 day window. There is no significant cluster of people who are made to wait 2.9 days. Therefore what you say is just not happening, and there’s no reason to suppose it would start to happen just because the 3 day window becomes 10.
The vast majority of people who received those answers in 3 minutes/days, did so under previous administrations that generally supported gun rights (or at least did not actively oppose them), with an FBI that was (at least on the surface) nonpartisan. That is not the situation we currently find ourselves in.
I find it astoundingly naïve that you think that just because something hasn’t happened in the past, that it cannot happen in the future under a totally different set of circumstances.
I honestly think at this point the national political class is beyond repair. If we want to secure our rights we need to look to the states, their legislatures, and Article V.
Good luck with that. Every state level legislator sees a potential House or Senate member when they look in the mirror. There is no way they vote to cut off their personal dreams.
How does the 10 day waiting period affect those who are currently exempt from the instant background checks in their state (like holders of concealed carry permits)? I am just curious and doubt I will be buying a firearm any time soon.
What your state exempts is irrelevant. If you’re exempt from the current federal requirement for a background check, then the 3-day waiting period doesn’t affect you, and extending it to 10 days still doesn’t affect you.
If you’re not exempt from the federal requirement then you already have to have a background check no matter what your state says, and you have to wait up to 3 days for it to come back; if this passes that would go to 10 days, but of course it almost always comes back within 10 minutes rather than 10 days, so it wouldn’t affect many people.
Got it. When I made my first purchase prior to getting my concealed carry I got instant approval, so I never experienced a 3 day wait and/or learned the whys and wherefores. With a license, no call is made and it is straight to the form 4473 and done.
The Feds must approve any state-level alternative to the Federal background check system and/or any variations, such as allowing holders of current concealed carry permits to bypass the background check. Don’t be surprised when these exceptions suddenly go away, making every gun buyer subject to the onerous new 10 or 25 or 30 day rules.
They will call it “Equity”.
I have a license to carry and didn’t see an exemption. Since every state is different in how they handle this sort of thing, it appears to be a requirement for everyone, not counting those whose job requires them to use a firearm.
Not a fan. We are getting into scary territory.
Maybe I ought to read that there are 2 bills! Milhouse is correct.
Concealed carry permit holders of states that have FBI-approved permitting processes are allowed by law (if not by law, then by FBI interpretation of the law) to skip the background check when purchasing a firearm.
Here in Washington State, our permit system qualifies, but the Democrat governor won’t allow the exercise of the exemption, so we end up having to go through a background check every time we make a firearms purchase.
It’s possible your state’s background check for permitting doesn’t reach the standards necessary to qualify permit holders to skip the check when buying a firearm. Or maybe your governor is a dick.
The FBI allows this in order to relieve demand on the instant background check system. They don’t see any utility in having all concealed carry permit holders background-checked every time they purchase a firearm.
Okay, thanks for that. My use of the word “exemption” was probably interpreted to be a legal term. So I’m not crazy about us CHL/CCL/CHP/whatever licensees getting to skip to the head of the line.
That said, I am still curious as to whether this bill would change that. The question stands: Will either of these bills remove the (whatever) that allows concealed carry owners (in 2A-friendly states) to skip the background check?
Not that I’ve seen reported anywhere
Remember all the mass shootings we lived through during the Trump years that are being used to justify these new restrictions on our rights? Yeah, neither do I. As I recall, we didn’t see any uptick in mass shootings till after Inauguration Day. Hmmm.
If we follow this stupidity far enough, we’ll have to have a licensed car dealer act as middle-man for me selling you my car…all in the name of highway safety, of course.
I think that people are getting confused here.
Currently, we have a federal system which performs a background check of a potential firearm buyer, through the NICS, at the time of sale. This is federal law. Most firearms sales go through a point of sale background check, either through the NICS directly or through the NICS, via a state’s Point Of Contact service, usually a state LEA. Now there are some exceptions to the background check requirement, at point of sale. One of these is of the buyer has been issued a concealed carry license by a state law enforcement agency. If the system dies not return an approval or denial, at the time of sale, the sale will be withheld for 3 days. Of no approval or denial has been returned at the end of that time, then the sale is assumed to have been accepted and can be consummated. But, states also have their own laws which establish a standard waiting period, between sale and delivery. These have nothing to do with federal law. There are exceptions to these mandatory waiting periods as well.
What the House bill does is to extend the period required to respond to a POS request from 3 days to 10.
The Feds must approve all state-level alternatives to the Federal background check, including variances such as allowing permit holders to bypass new checks. These can (and probably will) go away overnight at the whim of a bureaucrat.
So if a clan patriarch buys an arsenal then lends the huntingself defence implements to family members that will still be legal?
Is it also legal for the leader of a community watchdefence group to temporarilyindefinitely lend items to others in the group so long as concerns about Antifa, BLM, and other left-wing terrorists remain high?
It would appear that lending in good faith is protected. That was the major problem with previous versions of this proposal, so this provision goes most of the way to making it tolerable. (I’d even say “acceptable” if the other side were acting in good faith, and if they had offered something in return. But they’re not and they haven’t.)
Cut to the chase, As they say on gun friendly blogs, the Time to buy your gun is now. The Time to buy your ammo was yesterday. With so many new gun owners ammo is in short supply and becoming more expensive.
No. While this proposal is not good, it seems that it won’t interfere with almost anyone’s legitimate purchase, and for most people won’t even increase the cost or the inconvenience. Oppose it by all means, but don’t panic.
California has a once-every-30-days handgun purchase limit. I have little doubt expanding the national background check time limit to 30 days is intended to be a back-door means to implement this nationally, but for long guns too.