House Bill waiting for Senate to take up

CAJUNLAWYER

CAJUNLAWYER

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
19,145
Reaction score
63,314
Location
On da Bayou Teche
Can someone direct me to the House bill passed in February that everyone is so hot for the Senate to take up. I'd like to read it to see just exactly it says rather than rely on "news" to tell me what they think it says. I'm funny that way.....
 
Register to hide this ad
My two senators are fully in favor of universal background checks, as well as Red Flag laws, magazines bans, "assault weapons" bans, "silencer" bans, one gun a month schemes, waiting periods and anything else you can think of, but they are "pro second amendment" and will let Elmer keep his single barreled hunting shotgun... for now.
 
H.R.8 went to the Senate on March 4...five months ago. There has been absolutely no action taken on it. It's just there. Somewhere.

I expect the bill to be taken up by the Senate in September after Labor Day. It may move through the Senate and its committees and come up for a vote, but I don't expect the bill's progress to be swift. Although it passed the House by a significant margin, there is still a lot of opposition to the bill in the Senate. I also feel opponents of the bill will use every delaying tactic they can. Send the bill to one committee or another, let it languish there until after the first of the year, who knows.

No one can say with any certainty if the president would even sign it. A lot can happen between now and the end of the year.
 
Unfortunately, this state's senators are a couple of party line dimwits. I've written letters in the past and received condescending sound bite replies about the "greater good." They need to be flushed out in the next election cycle.
 
stansdds said:
My two senators are fully in favor of universal background checks, as well as Red Flag laws, magazines bans, "assault weapons" bans, "silencer" bans, one gun a month schemes, waiting periods and anything else you can think of, but they are "pro second amendment" and will let Elmer keep his single barreled hunting shotgun... for now.
Click to expand...

Also in VA (NOVA). Fortunately Warner is being challenged. The trouble with Trump today on "good background checks" is that they will bring a shrink into it. When I worked at nuke plants, we had to take the MMPI every couple years. Good people failed for silly reasons. Shrinks are generally anti gun so having them as a gating function is going to be bad.
 
s&wchad said:
Text - H.R.8 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

They basically want all private sales to go through a dealer and undergo a background check. I doubt the Senate will take it up, but it's good idea to contact your Senators and let them know you oppose it.

NRA-ILA | About S. 42 and H.R. 8
Click to expand...

Thank you.I always like to read the actual bill to know what I am ranting against.:D
Having now read it, I can safely state that THIS BILL IS BULL**** AND I AM TOTALLY AGAINST IT :mad:
I now return you to the regular program ;)
 
Old cajunlawyer wants to actually read the proposed bill before making up his mind. How quaint, how old-fashioned, how LAWYER-LIKE.

I hope this serves as an example to the rest of the class. Before you jump on your next bandwagon be sure to find out who is driving it and where it is going before you pile on.

Start thinking like a lawyer, not the ones who advertise late at night on television for auto accident victims or class action lawsuits, but like our Bayou Buddy on this forum.
 
stansdds said:
My two senators are fully in favor of universal background checks, as well as Red Flag laws, magazines bans, "assault weapons" bans, "silencer" bans, one gun a month schemes, waiting periods and anything else you can think of, but they are "pro second amendment" and will let Elmer keep his single barreled hunting shotgun... for now.
Click to expand...
Same here. No point contacting my Senators (Murray-D and Cantwell-D). Neither of them ever read a gun control regulation they didn't like.
We in WA already have mandatory BGCs for all sales, retail or private anyway. Trying to tell them it isn't a good idea on a national level would be pointless.
 
Based on a very quick read the Bill looks clean and straightforward. It would add the requirement of a NICS check for the transfer of a gun between non-closely related persons. It would also seem to require a NICS check if the owner wants to let a non relative temporarily possess the weapon outside of the owner's presence.

Except for nuisance and slippery slope, what are the best arguments against this Bill.

Thanks

Note: the Bill empowers authorities to bust a gun supplier for a single transfer, without money changing hands, without having to prove the supplier is an unlicensed dealer or a felon in possession and without having to prove the supplier had reason to suspect the transferee was up to no good or a prohibited person.
 
Last edited:
Potential pitfalls of a national NICS requirement for private transfers:


Would require transfers to occur at an FFL shop.
FFL shop likely to have a fee for such checks.
A BATF form 4473 likely required for all such checks.
The form 4473 can act as a de facto registration system for all firearms.
Criminals will not participate in such checks when obtaining firearms.



Just me spitballing a bit, take it for what it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Faulkner
Tales from the Faulkner Files: You don't remember me . . .
Replies
17
Views
998
quikdraw67
quikdraw67
444 Magnum
property tax foul up
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
BC38
BC38
Ματθιας
The things you find out after someone dies...
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
decuerno
D
B
32-20 ship date query for great-grandfather's revolver
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
bumgarb
B
E
Refreshed and improved 5906
Replies
1
Views
283
Tazman11
Tazman11

Latest posts

Back
Top