A Blue Slip in the House

[I'vebeenduped]

Someone with intestinal fortitude wants to save the 2A. Great. I like that. Still, can someone please explain this Blue Slip issue? I have never heard of it being used. The article makes it sound like a slam dunk but I don't believe in those anymore. Kind of like believing in the tooth fairy. If this IS true, would it also have implications toward universal healthcare? I hope that this doesn't come off as a drive-by. It certainly isn't meant to be one.
As they explain the blues slip,
"A “blue slip” is a resolution that automatically returns to the Senate any bill that violates the “origination clause” of the United States Constitution. The origination clause states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” "

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/re...-ban-in-house/

[Tom Servo]

There's a definition of the concept here.

Now, the idea pertains to bills affecting budget and spending. Since every draft I've seen so far contains stipulations for funding, this could be a viable approach.

[Evan Thomas]

Actually, I don't think so. There's a good discussion of how the origination clause is interpreted here. According to that article:

...[T]he House includes within the definition of revenue legislation not only direct changes in the tax code, but also any fees paid to the government that are not payments for a specific service, and any change in import restrictions, because of the potential impact on tariff revenues. <snip> The Supreme Court has occasionally ruled on origination clause matters, adopting a definition of revenue bills that is based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose.

I take this to mean that the origination clause applies to bills intended to raise revenue. So none of this is relevant, as the current legislation proposes grants to the states for the specific purpose of funding the implementation of the new background check requirements, but says nothing about how these grants should be funded.

It certainly isn't relevant to fees collected by FFLs, since those don't go to the government at all.

None of this is to say that Rep. Stockman won't try to do this, but it's not likely to do much. And since the Senate bill is very unlikely to get anywhere in the House, it looks to me more like a bit of grandstanding on his part.

[I'vebeenduped]

Maybe this clause would be appropriate if an ammunition tax is attempted?

[Evan Thomas]

For now, such speculation is off-topic, as it hasn't happened, and we have no idea what form it would take if such a thing were proposed.

We'll worry about that if it happens.