Universal Background Check bill passes House vote

[thallub]

H. R. 1446 is designed to eliminate the so called "Charleston loophole"; that allowed Dylan Roof to obtain a firearm after three days. Roof then shot up a church killing 9 people.

Now the political hacks intend to punish gun buyers for some nameless bureaucrats failure to notify the the FBI that Roof had admitted to illegal drug possession.

[cdoc42]

The question remains, how would any of these legislative attempts have prevented what happened recently in Georgia?

The murderer bought the gun, apparently legally, the same day he committed the crimes.

In this case, after the act, he would have to prove he had a cleared background check. Or else, what?

[44 AMP]

No background check can affect anyone who has not already committed some act that leaves a record. Period.

many of the mass murderers had no criminal record before committing mass murder.

No law would, or could stop that. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

something that stinks...

[5whiskey]

No background check can affect anyone who has not already committed some act that leaves a record. Period.

many of the mass murderers had no criminal record before committing mass murder.

No law would, or could stop that. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

something that stinks...

That’s literally my entire argument against gun control when a mass shooter is focus of the argument. Almost every single time one occurs, the shooter either had no history at all, or had a history and should have flagged the NICS check but didn’t because either the fbi or another reporting agency dropped the ball in entering info. UBCs would have largely had zero impact on most mass shootings. At least the memorable ones which fuel the anti gun hype. Few, if any mass shooters that currently recall, purchased the firearm used in a back alley or off armslist.

There are so many guns in circulation today, and so many gun owners, that there is literally no way to make effective fun control. Even if there was a total ban after the 2nd amendment had been repealed (not happening), there wouldn’t be enough compliance to put a large dent in total firearms in circulation. Certainly there would be far fewer firearms carried daily. But the only ones who would disarm are those who don’t intend to do harm.

[steve4102]

According to "The News" (I know, I know) the Senate is gearing up to vote on rescinding the 60 vote cloture rule. Earlier this year (2) Democrat Senators stated they would vote no on just a rule change. According to the News, Schumer thinks he has the votes.

If that rule is changed, then all that is needed to pass this legislation and all legislation is a simple majority which the Democrats have.

[DMK]

According to "The News" (I know, I know) the Senate is gearing up to vote on rescinding the 60 vote cloture rule. Earlier this year (2) Democrat Senators stated they would vote no on just a rule change. According to the News, Schumer thinks he has the votes.

If that rule is changed, then all that is needed to pass this legislation and all legislation is a simple majority which the Democrats have.

Even from their own point of view that is so short sighted and stupid.

That is going to come back and bite them next time they are the minority party.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

There were actually TWO background check bills passed by the House, and it appears that HR 8 isn't the one we need to worry about, so much as HR 1446: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...%5D%7D&s=3&r=1

I'm not saying that HR 8 is good -- but don't lose sight of other bills.

LOL, 3 week wait.

Look, at first I thought that the Democrats were willing to make all votes in the senate a simple majority to pass, but even Sinema of Arizona isn't willing to do that for certain votes and gun control is one of them because Arizona loves their guns.

I'd like to see which 10 senators on the Republican side would vote for that bill and justify to their constituents why they have to go from a 3 day wait to a 3 week wait. I mean, even establishment Murkowski would get slaughtered in her re-election in 2022 if she voted yes for that.

I'm more concerned about all the retiring senators like Burr, Toomey, Portman, McConnell and those who don't care if they get re-elected like Romney and those who are actively anti gun like Rubio.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The simple answer is because that's the way THEY WANT IT, and that ALL we're being offered.

They NEED a registration of all guns, so they can answer the question "PROOVE you had a background check done ON THAT GUN",, which to my mind is a question that should NOT be asked.

Their entire concept of tying the background check to the specific gun (by ser#) is only needed if the desired end result is to create a registration list of guns. (Along with the repulsive base concept of assuming guilt and having to have the gun owner prove their innocence ).

They could run the check only on the person, but they don't want that, and won't accept that when we offer it instead of their system.

Note that, right now, and since it started, the Fed "instant" check has never required the gun serial#. The only gun information used is "handgun or long gun" (because of the age requirements) and nothing more.

The current check is on the records OF THE BUYER and has NOTHING to do with the gun being purchased.

This is not what the gun control people want. They WANT a system that includes the firearm data (ser#) so that they might compile ownership list from that (no matter what other laws may say they WILL try to do that IF they have the information in the systems).

Personally I detest the idea that I may have to prove when I didn't break the law. That's not how it's supposed to work in the US.

Best way to explain it where everyone can understand. Wish all Americans could read and understand what you wrote.