UBC Bills set for vote

[kmw1954]

Was just reading that today, 2/27/19 there are two Universal Background Check Bills set to be voted on in the US House. I have already emailed my congressman that I oppose these Bills and would like him to vote against them.

How I need to find out how to see how they voted on this. From the little bit that I have found these look like horrible Bills.

[danco]

Here are links to the two Bills:

H.R. 8

H.R. 1112

[kmw1954]

Thank you, the story I had did not give the Bill number, just the name.

[danco]

H.R. 8, the Universal Background Check bill, has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Here are the 8 Republicans that voted with the Democrats to pass this unconstitutional legislation:

Vern Buchanan (FL)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
Will Hurd (TX)
Peter King (NY)
Brian Mast (FL)
Christopher Smith (NJ)
Fred Upton (MI)

[USNRet93]

I’ll ask the legal reps here in this forum. Do attorneys feel this is ‘unconstitutional’ and if so, why. Considering all states now require back ground checks, how is ‘universal’ unconstitutional?
No, I’m not advocating anything, pro or con. I’m asking a legal interpretation.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Do attorneys feel this is ‘unconstitutional’ and if so, why. Considering all states now require back ground checks, how is ‘universal’ unconstitutional?

Not all states require background checks. Ohio doesn't.

The argument against the constitutionality, aside from it being a direct and impermissible burden on a constitutional right, is that a UBC is a regulation of categorically intrastate commerce.

That it's a poor idea does not itself make it unconstitutional.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is the link to see how your representative voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll099.xml

Not even a majority of states require background checks.

[kmw1954]

Interesting for sure. Now to watch were it goes in the Senate.

I can understand how those folks in FLA could be under the gun on this issue after that horrific school shooting. Though I fail to see how this could have prevented it.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Here is the link to see how your representative voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll099.xml

Not even a majority of states require background checks.

In order to purchase a gun from a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL), a consumer must provide identification and pass a federal background check using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' 4473 form.

I guess I should have said from a FFL..isn't that the case in all states?

Interesting for sure. Now to watch were it goes in the Senate.

Last I saw, McConnell won't even let it out of committee...so....

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I guess I should have said from a FFL..isn't that the case in all states?

So what exactly are you asking?

I’ll just send you a link to Printz v. United States now. The original Brady Act background checks being found unconstitutional on non-Second Amendment grounds is one reason we now have NICS. The Feds ability to dictate the use of NICS by FFLs rests heavily on the Interstate Commerce Clause as well (see also United States v. Lopez (Gun free school zones act of 1990 struck down as beyond federal power)).

If you are asking if H.R. 8 is constitutional, the answer is “I don’t know because I’m not in the habit of doing extensive legal research on showboat bills that aren’t going to become law.”

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

So what exactly are you asking?

I’ll just send you a link to Printz v. United States now. The original Brady Act background checks being found unconstitutional on non-Second Amendment grounds is one reason we now have NICS. The Feds ability to dictate the use of NICS by FFLs rests heavily on the Interstate Commerce Clause as well (see also United States v. Lopez (Gun free school zones act of 1990 struck down as beyond federal power)).

If you are asking if H.R. 8 is constitutional, the answer is “I don’t know because I’m not in the habit of doing extensive legal research on showboat bills that aren’t going to become law.”

Thanks, I guess...

[OPC]

zukiphile wrote: The argument against the constitutionality, aside from it being a direct and impermissible burden on a constitutional right, is that a UBC is a regulation of categorically intrastate commerce.

I'm only seeing this idea (emphasis mine) for the first time. What type of entity would likely have standing to bring suit as a matter pertaining to the intrastate commerce clause? Would it have to be a business?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Considering all states now require back ground checks, how is ‘universal’ unconstitutional?
…
I guess I should have said from a FFL..isn't that the case in all states?

The regulation of FFL is a federal matter, since they are federal licensees. It is not a state matter.

UBCs as proposed are required in all transactions between non-licensees.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by OPC

I'm only seeing this idea (emphasis mine) for the first time. What type of entity would likely have standing to bring suit as a matter pertaining to the intrastate commerce clause? Would it have to be a business?

Anyone engaged in commerce, i.e. selling or buying, not just a business.

Standing isn't the hard part. The problem is that the commerce clause was stretched out of shape quite badly during and after FDR's presidency, and the tests for its use as a basis for congressional authority are so broad that all justices except Thomas upheld a federal prosecution of a fellow who was growing marijuana for his own use within one state (no commerce and entirely intrastate).