H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021

[GlockSpock]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8?q={"search"%3A["hr+8"]}&r=1&s=1

Think it will pass? 210 co-sponsors, of note the equivalent bill from last year had 232 co-sponsors.

I notice Cohen and Cooper are both on the list.

GOA have a nice tool for sending emails. 

[robin48]

It will probably pass in the House 50 50 chance in the Senate

[Wheelgunner]

An attempt to make the federal congress "regulate" the lawful exchange of goods between one Tennessean and another Tennessean, having nothing to do with interstate commerce or any other legit constitutional source of congressional authority... Hmm.

Mr. Thompson, how about you see to California and I'll see to Tennessee. 

[Grayfox54]

I hadn't thought of that. Would make a valid legal argument against the universal background checks the feds have been pushing for years. Brilliant!  Why hasn't anybody brought this up before? 

Added: I just sent e-mails to my Congress Critters to remind them of this fact. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Grayfox54

[Darrell]

9 hours ago, Wheelgunner said:

having nothing to do with interstate commerce

Remember that virtually every member of congress is a lawyer, and they've been using the Interstate Commerce clause to legislate things that are not federal in nature for years. They'll surely find a way to exert control, just as they do over a zillion other things in our lives. Congress long ago abandoned the Constitution as it applies to restrictions on federal government. 

[Grayfox54]

That is true. Congress has no understanding of their own legal limits. However, if it were pushed into the courts, I see no way it could stand under current law. 

[btq96r]

If it gets through the Senate, it'll hold up in court I think.  Background checks are already in place and legal for dealer purchases, so this just widens the net as it were.  It doesn't add a burden that isn't already in existence, just expands it to a larger number of transactions.

What Republicans should do is haggle over it, and try to get something for going along with it.  If Democrats want universal background checks to make things "safer", than we should feel safe enough to remove suppressors and/or SBRs from NFA restrictions.  Or something else not as flashy, but just as important, like prohibiting import restrictions on ammo.  Point is, UBCs are a small thing to negotiate away for something that has a wider and more lasting impact in my mind.

[Chucktshoes]

Unless SCOTUS uses UBCs to toss the Wickard decision, I believe that it will stand if passed. 
 

As alluring as the idea of true compromise like getting suppressors off the NFA might sound, I can’t get on board with supporting it. UBCds are unenforceable, unless you have universal registration. So it won’t be long after UBCs get passed that registration will come along to make the UBC system viable. 
 

[Darrell]

And the bill passed in the house today. Chucktshoes makes a good point obliquely. I think one of the biggest attractions of UBC for the gun-grabbers is that idea of a universal registry. With UBC in-place, it's theoretically possible to trace the owner of ever firearm sold privately as well as through a dealer. 

[btq96r]

13 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

UBCds are unenforceable, unless you have universal registration.

I'd say to that, there are plenty of unenforceable laws in effect.  This would be like all the others that exist to make others feel good, and give government something to charge a person with for show.  It presents a chance to get something important for little to no cost.  If Democrats don't want to play ball, then give up nothing, and make them get it alone.  This opportunity is very low risk for a potential high reward as I see it.

[Chucktshoes]

17 minutes ago, btq96r said:

I'd say to that, there are plenty of unenforceable laws in effect.  This would be like all the others that exist to make others feel good, and give government something to charge a person with for show.  It presents a chance to get something important for little to no cost.  If Democrats don't want to play ball, then give up nothing, and make them get it alone.  This opportunity is very low risk for a potential high reward as I see it.

The risk is where I would say you are wrong. The risk isn’t in the UBC the risk is in what must come next. It’s all about not setting the stage for a registry and UBCs will make one a necessity. 

[btq96r]

There is even less reach given these carve outs (probably meant to head off talking points against it), especially sections B, D & F:

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary 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;

“(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

 

12 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

The risk is where I would say you are wrong. The risk isn’t in the UBC the risk is in what must come next. It’s all about not setting the stage for a registry and UBCs will make one a necessity. 

Then that's the walkaway point.  Get what we can now, and dig in later.  If they want to attach registration to the negotiation, that would end things and we're back to where we are now. 

[TGO David]

UBCs are registration under a different name.  It's the same thing.  Call your Senators.  Email them, visit them.  Demand that they NOT pass this garbage.

Registration only leads one place:  Confiscation.

 

[Capbyrd]

Quote

(c) Rules Of Interpretation.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to—

(1) authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry; or

 

 

I'd like to be able to be on the debate floor for this bill.   Hoping one of our allies brings all of this up at some point. 

[Fourtyfive]

Here we go.....

[Garufa]

3 hours ago, btq96r said:

There is even less reach given these carve outs (probably meant to head off talking points against it), especially sections B, D & F:

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary 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;

“(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

 

Then that's the walkaway point.  Get what we can now, and dig in later.  If they want to attach registration to the negotiation, that would end things and we're back to where we are now. 

The decades of give and take have gotten us to where we are now.  It’s hard to negotiate when your back is up against the wall.

There is no more negotiation.  Give a little now, give a lot more later.  It’s an endless cycle that will only continue until there is nothing left.  

This is just one of the many schemes the Dems have to restrict gun ownership.  

[1gewehr]

It passed in the House.  Democrats are acting as though it's a done deal in the Senate.  Call Senators Blackburn and Hagerty.  Hagerty strikes me a one of the squishy Republicans who might be persuaded to 'reach across the aisle'.  He probably could use a few more phone calls to stiffen his spine.

[Darrell]

This from Senator Diane Feinstein:

“*I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this bill and other reforms, including the assault weapons ban that I plan to introduce in the coming weeks*. Commonsense bills to combat gun violence have been introduced in the House and with a new administration in the White House, it’s time to take action to end gun violence.”

House Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) vowed on Thursday to reintroduce gun reform legislation, while the House passed a second bill aimed at background checks within the last hour.

https://www.infowars.com/posts/feinstein-promises-assault-weapons-ban-hours-after-house-passes-background-check-bill/

[DWARREN123]

Just the start folks, just the start!

[Erik88]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think calling our Senators is going to help on this one. Neither TN Senator will vote for this. We need a few moderate Democrats to break from the group. I think there is a chance but I could be wrong. 

[Darrell]

51 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I think there is a chance but I could be wrong.

So far the democrats in the senate are voting in lock-step. There is a small chance that one or two dems from gun-friendly states could demur, but I think that Schumer has a pretty tight lock on his party. Some of the New England states  take gun rights seriously, so maybe a senator or two from those states might "defect", but I don't count on it. Georgia, too, is pretty conservative as far as gun-rights go, but those gun-owners voted against both it's senators and they know that.

[Erik88]

11 minutes ago, Darrell said:

So far the democrats in the senate are voting in lock-step. There is a small chance that one or two dems from gun-friendly states could demur, but I think that Schumer has a pretty tight lock on his party. Some of the New England states  take gun rights seriously, so maybe a senator or two from those states might "defect", but I don't count on it. Georgia, too, is pretty conservative as far as gun-rights go, but those gun-owners voted against both it's senators and they know that.

My money would be on one of these in yellow. That's who we need.

 

[GlockSpock]

I'm honestly surprised something to this extent, or much worse, wasn't attached to the 1.9T bill.

I don't have much hopes that it will fail in the Senate. And again, I'm honestly surprised UBC's weren't passed during Obama's presidency. UBC's are a feel good measure that a lot of casual gun-owners (Fudd) support. On the contrary, I argue that if someone isn't incarcerated they should be able to purchase a firearm. If they have proven themselves to be so dangerous they cannot own a firearm, perhaps they shouldn't be on the streets.

[FUJIMO]

I'm just happy I gambled with my gut instead of listening to those that thought gun control was sooooooo far down on geriatric joes list

[Chucktshoes]

36 minutes ago, FUJIMO said:

I'm just happy I gambled with my gut instead of listening to those that thought gun control was sooooooo far down on geriatric joes list

As someone who didn’t think they’d move this quickly, I freely admit I got it wrong.