House Dems Will Take Another Swing at ‘Universal Background Checks’

Nancy Pelosi Gun Control laughing

courtesy obeserver.com and Win McNamee/Getty Images

Democrats are salivating at the prospect of Speaker Pelosi wielding the gavel in the House again in January and for the next two years. And while they have plenty on their plate in an effort to appease their ever left-drifting voters, one of their primary objectives is to introduce more gun control bills and get more votes on the record.

Toward that end . . .

House Democrats plan to prioritize a bill that will require a background check for every gun sale, according to multiple sources close to the matter. The legislation represents an aggressive shift in strategy by Democrats and their gun reform allies, who in previous years had tended to pursue more modest background check bills that would have exempted large numbers of gun purchases.

TERMINOLOGY NOTE: remember the approved term of art is “gun reform” now. Please don’t use any outdated labels such as (i.e. gun control, registration, confiscation, Second Amendment limitations) that might spook middle-of-the-road voters, mkay?

Anyway, Dems have wanted to take another swing at universal background checks ever since the Manchin-Toomey bill went down in flames after Sandy Hook.

…(W)ith (Speaker) Ryan leaving Congress and Democrats winning control of the House, (California Rep. Mike) Thompson now plans to introduce a bill that will go further than any of those earlier proposals: It will require a background check for every gun sale or transfer, regardless of who’s doing the selling or transferring. The move has been in the works since before the election, when Thompson met with outside gun reform allies like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Center for American Progress, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Giffords to talk about what they might push for if Democrats won the House.

A bill that will go further than earlier proposals? How much further?

The precise details of the legislation have not been finalized; Thompson is still discussing the bill with his fellow Democrats and plans to release more specifics sometime before the end of the year. Pelosi’s office told Mother Jones it could not confirm details about when the bill would be introduced in the next session, but its emergence makes good on a promise Pelosi made to the student survivors of the Parkland shooting—with whom she regularly discusses gun reform priorities—about passing universal background checks if Democrats regained control of the House.

In other words, Thompson’s sitting down with Bloomberg’s minions as well as a couple of others from Giffords and Brady to draft something that will jack up the hassle and expense factors to keep as many Americans from navigating the system as possible.

Will the Dems’ go as far as including something like what New York is proposing by requiring a check of prospective gun buyers’ social media accounts? Don’t put anything past them. They seem to think the midterm results gave them a mandate to push for more gun control. At least that’s the story they’re telling their media cheering section stenographers.

As Mother Jones concedes, the UBC bill will likely never come to a vote in the GOP-controlled Senate, let alone be signed by President Trump. They’re just looking to be able to tell their increasingly left-leaning constituents back home that they’ve addressed the problem of “gun violence” while getting House Republicans on the record with a no vote. They could then use those votes opposing such a — wait for it — common-sense gun reform measure against them in the 2020 election cycle.

Good times.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Just say “No”

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      There’s a number of adjectives that would enhance “No”.

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        The chance to say “no” was in election day. Too many people showed up and said “yes”.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          One can say”No” regardless of elections.

          Civil Disobedience starts with the word “No!”

  2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    I think that with the Demo-Commies inside fighting and not getting this b s thru the senate, nothing will be done. Everything that they will propose will be so extreme that it will be too politically toxic to back. We will see. I think we are now seeing the economy go back into the tank and will continue to do so in the next two years. Next election the demo-commies will loose ground because of extremism.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Don’t stop your enemy when they are making a mistake. Eventually the ultra radical Antifa black block groups will run out of patience for their promised utopia and try to kick off a civil war.

      1. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

        This ^ ^

        Even if the Dims are dumb enough to try that, it’d get stopped by the Senate. And even if they managed to put together enough RINOs to also get it through the Senate, it wouldn’t be by the required margins to obviate Trump’s signature. Meaning, it’ll never happen. But .. it’s funny to watch them try.

        “Democrats are salivating”

        Another way of saying that is ‘Drooling’, which they do so continuously it ceases to be news. Now, back to the important business of not letting the US military accidentally capsize Guam.

  3. avatar 2aguy says:

    The only reason they want Universal Background checks is because it gives them the path to universal gun registration. That is the only reason. They do not care about criminals getting guns, since UBCs will not stop that, and mass public shooters can pass any background check current or universal…or they simply steal the guns they use. Once they get Universal Background checks and gun crime continues….and mass public shootings continue, they will be back, and they will say, “Well, obviously, Universal Background Checks can’t work if we don’t know who has the guns…….” and they will wait for the next public shooting to roll out their call for universal gun registration……..

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      I completely agree that registration is the goal. But I think it’s a bit simpler path to registration than you suggest. You cannot enforce a universal background check requirement without being able to prove that a transfer occurred without a check being performed. The only way to do that is to have all guns registered.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        No, the goal is total gun bans. UBC’s, AWB, mag limits, age restrictions, etc. are steps towards the ultimate goal.

        Part of UBC’s are the cost dealers would charge to transfer guns, that increases the cost and hassle of buying and selling guns. If they increase the cost and hassle, some may not buy guns. With anything, if you make it a pain in the butt, the number of people doing that will drop. As they make it more expensive and more of a hassle, it will drop off even more.

        Look at the percentage of gun owners or conceal carry license holders in places like NH where the permit process was very simple and very easy (and quick) vs a place like MA or NJ or NYC. They want to shrink the number of gun owners by increasing the cost and the hassle.

        1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          No, the goal is total gun bans. UBC’s, AWB, mag limits, age restrictions, etc. are steps towards the ultimate goal.

          I completely agree. Before they can take the guns, they have to know where they are. That makes registration a necessary step in the process. That is why registration has been so forcefully opposed over the years. IMHO, that’s also the real reason why they’re so hot for the UBC’s. It also seems to me that the extra hassle in the interim is just bonus as far as they’re concerned.

    2. avatar Draven says:

      Especially since the CA Assembly’s pet gun control scientist at UC Davis even admitted in a study that universal background checks had no effect on the crime rate…

  4. avatar OBOB says:

    i’ll say YES to that nonsense for a few trades

    Silencers off the NFA and the machine gun list being reopened!

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Penny wise, and pound foolish.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        I agree, except on the exchange rate. UBC opens the door to catastrophic infringements up to and including nationwide bans and confiscations. It’s colossally foolish.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Yep.

          with UBC’s, they will know who owns what and when they try to ban things, they know where to go to confiscate them.

          Hell no to UBC’s.

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      How about every time you say “yes” to ANY compromise, I just say “NO!”.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        You won’t have a choice if a Leftist defeats Trump in 2020. Remember, we have to defend 20 senate seats in 2020.

        There’s a very real chance in 2021 a Leftist president signs exactly what Pelosi hands him…

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          Or HER…..

    3. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Trades don’t work. In Florida our Republicrats traded bump stocks and various ill-defined rate in increaserizer devices they also deem as bump stocks, red flag laws, and raising the age of purchase to 21, plus waiting periods on rifles, silencers, and receivers for…. The theoretical ability for some rural schools to hire some armed security! They are trying to get their armed guards here in North Florida as well but the usual suspects are suing because you wouldn’t want guns in school, right? Gotta keep those sacred learning spaces free from the influences of violence… So the kids can beat each other up or their teachers, or an evil person can shoot them up unopposed.

      Federally we were able to trade some extra school funding for anti gun groups and extra anti gun propoganda “studies” for some extra NICS checking. That was neato!

      I am sure we could trade federal UBC for some federal age limit raises, maybe a federal red flag law because Rick Scott and Marco Rubio think that is what gun owners like. Sure the Republicans will be happy to consider some gun reform too!

      But HPA and carry reciprocity, the Republican controlled Senate didn’t even want to let it out of committee for even consideration or a token vote. You won’t win the trading game, you will end up with only want you don’t want, and nothing you do.

    4. avatar Jros says:

      Some would agree but theres never been a trade like you’re thinking. In theory it might work like that but never does in practice.

  5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I thought gun safety was the new hotness? Now it’s gun reform? Who can keep up?

    The Pelosi-controlled House is going to make for a fun couple of years. She won’t be able to help herself from proving the voters exactly why we don’t let Democrats control the House – and all to no avail, since none of her nonsense will see the light of day in the Senate.

    1. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

      We have to defend 20 senate seats in 2020, Chip…

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Look at the 2020 senate map, there are very few places where dem’s have a chance to pick up seats. Plus it’s legislation, it needs 60 votes in the senate, not a simple majority.

  6. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    No, I like the way my gun(s) is(are) now. I do not want you to “reform” my firearm(s). In fact, I don’t want you to stick your fat fingers into anything related to my Second Amendment rights. If you want to reform something, how about reforming the Socialist Party in America back into the Democrat Party? I still won’t like you, but at least I won’t feel a pressing need to lock and load every time you pull your head out of your ass to blather another stupid demand.

    Like some ancient, and long dead, Greek dude said to an oppressive oversized government leader who didn’t like the functionality and abundance of that old Greek dude’s weapons, “Come and take them.” (paraphrased). If you choose to accept the challenge, wear body armor and remember that your head is over 5″ across. Five inches is well within the accuracy, at 200 yards, of any of the up to 7,000,000 AR style semi-auto rifles and carbines currently in private hands.

    If you want to regulate who can trade guns with me, if you don’t trust me – an American citizen – to decide who should, or should not, be allowed to buy or trade for my weapons – then you can make that change in the US Constitution – – – but only if you get enough actual US citizens to agree with you. I will NOT be among those who agree with your incompetent idiocy.

  7. avatar CZ Rider says:

    If they were serious about this being a “safety and law and order for the children” issue they’d just push for state ID to include some sort of mark indicating prohibited purchaser status along with some fluff prohibiting discrimination based on it and stiffer penalties for unlawful sale. Everyone with ID gets checked every X number of years for any change in status. No need for checks on any specific person or at time of sale, no record of any transactions required. Burden is on the seller to check since they should be establishing same state residency anyway.

    Instead, they insist on calling fedzilla for a permission slip if a person hands a friend or relative a rifle to try at the range. I think we need a law stopping stupid and biased politicians from making laws about things they don’t care about instead.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      They aren’t concerned with the illegal owners, it’s the huge number of legal owners they are interested in. The hardcore illegal criminals should be in jail anyway.

      Fortunately for SC taxpayers one of them got whacked earlier this week.

      1. avatar CZ Rider says:

        Yeah, i know. I actually kind of wish the R’s would take up a UBC proposal like the above just to punch the D’s in the gut though. Scrap NICS, provide federal funding for the states to take over, ensure an appeals process is in place for wrongful denial or restorstion of rights. Then run ads about the evil dems supporting the NRA when they vote it down for not being statist enough!

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    They have UBC in ILLinois. Homie in Chiraq didn’t get the message…😩

    1. avatar Defens says:

      We also have UBC in Washington – it’s largely ignored. Even most of the rural county sheriffs have stated that they have no plans to enforce it.

      1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        Likely because there is no way TO enforce it…not in any practical way…

    2. avatar Grumpster says:

      True about UBC in Illinois but at least private sales don’t have to go through an FFL and when a sale is done between private individuals the state/feds do not get any info about what firearms were transacted. The seller is responsible for using State Police website to verify that buyers FOID is still valid. I am sure that what pelosi has in mind would require everything to go through an FFL.

      1. avatar grumpster says:

        However with new democrat governor and super majority of democrats in Illinois state house and senate, I am sure democrats will be looking for further bans and probably registration in Illinois.

  9. avatar MikeB says:

    They are forgetting the reason it doesn’t exist now. The Feds can’t constitutionally dictate this to the states. The only reason they can with FFLs is because FFLs are federally licensed. Now of course I don’t trust our Supreme Court with InterState Commerce decisions, but this is as likely to be shutdown as upheld by SCOTUS if it ever passed in the first place.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Understand the goal is to apply this to every transfer not only sale. That means you can’t hand a firearm to another person without some kind of background check on file.
    And think of the database which will come from this of names, serial numbers, locations, and dates.
    UBC is a data mining glory hole. And we know what comes next when the socialists are back in charge.

    As far as NYS version goes they might approach gun sites and demand a list of people hitting it from NYS up addresses so they can make sure they “only give guns to the right kind of people” who agree with them.

    Everywhere in the world lists of guns and owners has been compiled they are for the hardware at some point and suppressed buying at the same time.

  11. avatar C.S. says:

    And what’s the rationale for the wicked witches not in favor of suppressors?

    1. avatar Vicrattlehead says:

      They’re scary looking and bad guys in the movies always use them.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Because they see movies where the bad guys gun is impossible to hear with a can on it. They think that’s real.

  12. avatar Bob Jones says:

    The Parkland shooter passed his background check. Those Parkland “survivors” have shit-fer-brains. Must be a terrible teaching staff at that school.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Adam Lanza’s mom bought her gun legally too.

    2. avatar Vicrattlehead says:

      Not to mention a bunch of weak-knee’d, mush-for-brains parents who are too idiotic to explain to their kids that none of the garbage they’re advocating, and protesting for, would have saved a single one of their classmates or, more importantly, that many of their ‘solutions’ lead down a VERY dangerous path.

  13. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    Part of what they ran on, and they DID win the House (and would have even if they hadn’t cheated like weasels, though it would have been by a smaller margin). So, I guess this should be no surprise.

    Be interesting to see what the bill says regarding “record keeping.” That’s the real prize. Would let them go a long way toward disarming the law-abiding public without ever breaking down a single door, just hit people with punitive fines and deny government services until people turn them in.

  14. avatar SurfGW says:

    When are HRPPO (High Risk Period Protective Order) coming?
    For example, when a couple is getting divorced, this is a high risk period and you need to leave your guns with the police. It already is a force protection checklist items at some military commands.
    It is only a matter of time before a legislator thinks this is a good idea.

  15. avatar TommyG says:

    Most of the seats they flipped from Red to Blue where in Purple districts where the candidate ran on a moderate platform.
    Passing a bill like this will do one of two things:
    The moderate dems won’t go for it because they are afraid of losing there seat in two years.
    It passes and the house flips back red in two years.
    Its got no chance of becoming law with the senate and presidency being controlled by Republicans

  16. avatar Tom T says:

    Of course they will. As in the past, they will ignore reall issues, ignore real threats, and do nothing to improve quality of life for citizens. They will spend their time obsessing over a single goal: “What can we do next to piss off people we hate?”

  17. avatar Adam says:

    It is absolutely frightening how much power our government has. Likewise, Democrats are much more intelligent than Republicans when it comes to getting legislation passed. Make no mistake, they will eventually retake the Senate and the Presidency and when they do, you better believe that rifle and magazine bans are coming at us from the federal level.

    This House theatrics is just the beginning. The next decade is not going rough for people of the gun.

  18. avatar Soylent Green says:

    Funny…Dems want universal firearm transfer background checks to prevent illegal transfers of firearms but don’t want voter ID to prevent illegal vote transfer. Got any of them Universal Voter Background Checks?

    It’s almost like they have an agenda or something?

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      Funny how one right is more important than another…hmmm

  19. avatar Icabod says:

    Washington passed universal background checks in 2014. To date, one (1) person has been charged under the law. He to.d the police about selling a gun. However, the gun is gone and so is the suspect.
    This was out of over 708,000 state background checks.
    Supporters of the initiative “claim” that “50” purchases were blocked under the law. However, there is no record of any of these denials leading to charges, much less coming to trial.
    The “Gun show loophole?” Every gun show I’ve attended requires NICS background checks before purchase. Computers are provided. To enter the show with a gun requires proof that you have a concealed carry permit (ie having passed a background check)
    Pity these laws don’t come with a sunset date and requirements that supporters proved that they make a difference.

  20. avatar raptor jesus says:

    What are they salivating about?
    They have a majority in the house, the Republicans own the Senate 53/47 and own the White House.

    Nothing is going to get done for anyone for at least another two years.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Nothing contentious is going to be enacted, but all the Dems and most of the RINOs can get together to enact Sensible Gun Safety™, and a President who would unilaterally act to rewrite the NFA after 84 years to ban an accessory would gladly sign it into law.

  21. avatar Nanashi says:

    Why shouldn’t they? The NRA supports it

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      That was nearly 20 years ago. Has WLP realized how idiotic that is since then?

      P.S. And we wonder why the gun grabbers keep making progress…

      1. avatar KenW says:

        How about the present leader?
        In 1987, The Miami Herald reported that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to create a secret contingency plan authorizing “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to FEMA, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.”

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Wasn’t it Ollie North and Reagan who illegally sold arms to the crazy muslim fundamentalists in Iran?

          I am sure the ayatollah Khomeini really appreciated the Republican support for his revolution.

          And now Trump sells $110 billion of weapons to the Wahabi terrorists of Saudi Arabia.

          And he offers a bribe of a $50 million penthouses to Putin, KGB colonel.

          These Republicans sure are true patriot!S!

      2. avatar Docs Holliday says:

        When will they learn that “reasonable gun control” is repealing existing gun laws and expanding the 2nd amendment.

  22. avatar CZJay says:

    Got to keep putting up that gun registration (aka universal background checks) until it finally passes. They have a lot of experience doing that in California.

  23. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    At least the idiots that voted in “protest” for “true conservatism” will be promptly reminded as to why you shouldn’t ever allow Democrats in power.

    Looking at you, Orange County RINOs. You’ll get yours when you get your tax bill, and I’ll have no sympathy for you.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Republicans are Democrats. They just wear different color ties.

  24. avatar m. says:

    gun control = a**hole, i. e. pees-loosely & company

  25. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “In other words, Thompson’s sitting down with Bloomberg’s minions as well as a couple of others from Giffords and Brady to draft something that will jack up the hassle and expense factors to keep as many Americans from navigating the system as possible.”

    I like this, since I believe Bloomberg, a perported “Republican” will likely be the Democrat’s POTUS candidate in 2020 after the others are done eating each other. Taking bets…

  26. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Who would oversee all these checks? ATF? FBI?
    Going to give access to everyone to do them?
    Will just be an add-on crime at some point…failure to go through proper check…right?
    waste of time, money and resources…

  27. avatar Marty says:

    All I can say is I’m so glad I got all I’ll ever need/want back in the 1970’s and 80’s and I don’t have to put up with all this B.S. from the Commie Liberals. Guns? What guns? I ain’t got no guns. What are you talking’ about?

  28. avatar Michael says:

    It’s gonna be Fat City for gun sales again. This crowd is more revved up than I’ve seen them in years. Get ’em ( more firearms) while they’re hot, and don’t forget to buy more ammo, (think cases, not boxes) with each firearm purchased. There ain’t no therapy like retail therapy. -30-

  29. avatar james says:

    The criminal element will not shop at Guns ‘R Us, they but them cash and carry black market.

    Any and all background checks, common sense or other wise, are only good when issued, just as a Driver License when issued. How you operate your car once you leave the building is up to you.

  30. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    There needs to be a universal background check on each member of congresses fidelity to their oath ,there would be many Failed checks.

  31. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    Guess you’d better think of something else, Imhotep in drag.

  32. Congress only has enumerated powers.

    To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Under which powers do universal background checks fall under?

  33. avatar little horn says:

    won’t matter. just read the details of the EBGC, is nothing new. more security theater from the left.

  34. avatar Lylle says:

    FINE, but, then we should get a Universal license. Like drivers license.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email