2019 Gun Rights Predictions: Federal Universal Background Checks Will Pass

universal background checks

Courtesy FBI NICS

As we reported earlier in December, the Democrats who are about to take back control of the US House of Representatives are planning on making a big push for gun control. They’ve convinced themselves that more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms is a winning issue for them.

As part of that effort, they’ll be voting on a universal background check bill which will outlaw private gun sales. That bill will likely pass and be sent on to the Senate. Many here scoff at the idea of a UBC bill passing in the Republican-controlled upper chamber. They think there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to send a UBC bill on to the President. Well, I have some news for you. Don’t count on it.

courtesy wikipedia.org

The make up of the Senate seems to be 53 in the GOP’s favor. But the reality in terms of gun rights is very different. We have a Republican administration that backs red flag laws  and Republican law makers on the state and federal levels pushing for such laws. Also we saw President Trump and a number of Republican governors advocate bump stock bans and other gun control initiatives like magazine capacity limits. Universal background checks will fall right in line with red flag laws.

The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex just needs to flip four GOP members of the Senate to their side for a majority. And the gun grabbers have their four stooges.

Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Courtesy Gage Skidmore at CPAC 2014

Sen. Toomey, of course, has already co-authored a UBC bill with Democrat Senator Joe Manchin. This is something he fully supports. Expect him to either draft another bill or sign on to whatever the Democrats will push from the House.

Rick Scott  (R-FL)

courtesy wfsu.org and AP

Soon-to-be-former Florida Governor Rick Scott is an incoming freshman Senator. Scott already signed a gun control bill into law here in what was once known as the Gunshine State. That was when the Republican super-majority-controlled legislature whipped up SB-7026 after Parkland.

This is a blueprint of what the other gun grabbers have been using; gun violence restraining orders, a bump stock ban, a mandatory waiting period, and an age restriction on purchasing. Universal background checks will be a natural #commonsense progression for him.

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Courtesy WSVN News

Soon to be the the senior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio has openly supported magazine capacity limits and backed Florida Democrats’ attempts at passing stiffer gun control. As a former member of the state legislative body; he supported gun control then too. I expect hi to agree with Scott hat UBCs is a step in the “right direction.”

Mitt Romney (R-UT)

Courtesy reddogreport.com

Another incoming freshman to the Senate, Mitt Romney has a history of supporting gun control. As Governor of Massachusetts he signed the Bay State’s assault weapons ban into law and publicly stated “I’m a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.” In 2016 he opined that he supports enhanced background checks.

Those four votes would give universal background checks a majority needed for passage. But the Senate still requires 60 votes to end debate and bring a bill up for a vote.

Could the “common sense gun safety” side flip a few more (Collins? Cornyn? Sasse? Murkowski?) to get over the 60-vote hurdle and bring a UBC bill up for a vote? Would Senate Majority Leader McConnell allow a vote on a universal background check bill?

If a bill passes the Senate, look for President Trump to cave and sign it into law. As he’s already shown, he’s fine with limiting Americans’ Second Amendment rights (“Take the guns first, go through due process second”).

I honestly hope I’m wrong on this. But staring into the gun control Magic 8-Ball, all signs point to yes.

comments

  1. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

    Doubtful that McConnell will even bring it up for a vote. Remember, reciprocity passed the House too but we didn’t get a vote.

    1. avatar D says:

      So you rest the future of the entire republic on one man?

      1. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

        And what do you propose? Scream “shall not be infringed” and complain online?

        I don’t see him bringing something like this up for a vote. The way the system works we have to trust one person to not allow it.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        It’s all up to you, Luke! May the Force be with you!

      3. avatar CarlosT says:

        I have faith in Cocaine Mitch.

      4. avatar New Continental Army says:

        One man. Sounds more like a ghost then a man.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          Quite possible too. It has been known to happen often that those that stand in the way of “progress” have an accident or an assassination.

      5. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

        Our freedoms rest on four boxes:
        1st is the ballot box.
        2nd is soap box.
        3rd is the jury box.
        4th is the cartridge box.

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          And one, two, and three are compromised at this point.

          #HeedTheCallup

          Join your states militia.

        2. avatar possum the red nose delete says:

          Ansel “# heed the cal”l is probably a direct link to F.B.I., CIA, Homeland Security. A militia formed from the internet is not a good idea. . The 3rd civil war, or Renaissance, must be fought with money, not bullets.

        3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Possum, I understand your concern.
          #HeedTheCallUp is just something I write hoping to elicit a glimmer of realization in peoples minds that we are in a time when you can’t just sit around any more and hope it all works out.

          I agree about the money part but not in the traditional sense anymore. That saying comes to mind about Insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

    2. avatar SurfGW says:

      McConnell is always looking for “compromise” and “bi-partisanship” with Democrats, the same way that California Republicans (who hold only 25% of either legislative chamber) can always be counted to give 5 or 6 votes to Dems.
      McConnell may be tempted to bring it up to build “good will” for bills he will never get in the House. Have faith in the self-defeatism of Republicans!

      1. avatar Hammer says:

        McConnell is “always looking for compromise?”

        That’s seriously the funniest thing I’ve read all day. It’s hard to imagine a single person who better represents everything that has become divisive and ineffectual about Congress.

      2. avatar DDay says:

        Mitch is always looking to compromise? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

        Mitch plays to win. Ask Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland if Mitch is always looking to compromise and be bi partisan.

        Mitch won’t bring up any bills which will hurt his members in the next election. I don’t think he’ll bring up any gun control

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          I really like the way Mitch kowtows to his billionaire Chinese father-in-law, I’m sure China appreciates having an effective representative in Congress.

          Mitch McConnell, the best senator money can buy. Patriotism optional.

        2. avatar SurfGW says:

          Mitch said his highest priority next year is Obamacare repeal and replacement. House Democrats will ask for a down payment of “goodwill” before they negotiate Obamacare.
          If McConnell trades UBC for a shot at replacing Obamacare, you know what he really thinks of gun owners. Let’s see what happens!

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Miner, you’re a laughable troll. Funny how you leave out AIPACs ownership of the American political process.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Pg2, I don’t like Israel’s undue influence on our government as well. The continued naked aggression and power stand to take other peoples land for their own use pretty much condemns the government of Israel as a bad actor. To take another persons home by force of arms is a terrorist act and Israel continues with your occupation of Palestinian territories with the aid of the USA.

          Most Americans are either unaware or have forgotten the terrorism of the Irgun and other terrorist organizations who stole land from the Palestinians.

          Yes, the Holocaust was a fact and a terrible act but it does not authorize any group to take another person’s home.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…but it does not authorize any group to take another person’s home”

          The UN saw otherwise.

          And “home” is subject to debate.

      3. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Mitch McConnel is actually the only one to stand up to the democrats. Without him we would have justice Garland as noted above, but we’d also wouldn’t have justices goursch or kavannaugh. I’m actually willing to bet he’s smart enough not to let this pass the senate, and remember, the dems need 60 votes to pass. So that means they’d need, what, like 14 republicans to flip? Not gonna happen. 2-3? Maybe, but not 14.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “remember, the dems need 60 votes to pass.”

          60 votes to stop debate and bring to a vote. Thinking only majority need to actually pass the measure into law. Normal bills do not require 60 votes. So, the UBC is introduced into the Senate for debate. Debate ends (either by rule, or by 60 votes to cut off debate). The the bill is announced ready to proceed to vote. 51 votes, or VP to break a tie.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          From what I’ve read they’d need 60 votes to end debate and for legislation to pass, or 60 votes to end debate and then agree to the nuclear option to allow 51 votes. With 67 votes needed to change the rule outright. I really don’t see that happening the next two years. McConnel and the older republicans has been around long enough to remember what happened to the democrats in the 90s after the AWB. I fully agree though, that being in this position, relying solely on the senate to stop this nonsense is a bit unnerving. We had only two years of the possibility to play offense and our side didn’t, now were right back to being on defense again for the next 6 years minimum. It sucks. And I hate it.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          All you need is one republican to perform a filibuster. And out of the 52 or so, I’m betting one is willing to do it. To stop the filibuster (cloture) you need 60 votes. Dems don’t have it. So the bill will be abandoned due to the filibuster.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Trust them to screw us on procedural matters, do not trust them NOT to screw us on procedural matters.

    4. avatar Geoff says:

      But that was a pro-gun Bill and he let it die, along with the the Hearing Protection act and the SHARE Act.

  2. avatar BD says:

    And how long do we have for 80% lowers to remain on sale?

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      If they ban 80% lowers they’ll just come out with 75% lowers. And if they ban those they’ll sell 70% lowers. And if they ban those we’ll just do this;

      1. avatar D says:

        They won’t ban percentage lowers, they will ban the ability to make your own. It’s coming mark my words.

        Buy your 80%s NOW

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Expect laws or rules that declare any block of metal held by a private citizen to be constructive possession of a banned firearm component (as in tubes, washers and steel wool comprising silencers, whether assembled or not).

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          California has already done so. One is required to obtain a serial number from the State DOJ and have that number engraved on the lower prior to beginning construction of the firearm to the same standard as required of firearms manufacturers under federal law. The application includes a background check. (California has a
          UBC law.) And because of the closing of the registration period for “Bullet Button AWs”, the completed firearm must be “featureless.” There have been prior failed ttempts to ban parts importation into the state, as well as a ban on 80% lowers that was so poorly written it would have banned blank blocks of aluminum.

        3. avatar Geoff "Tom in Oregon was right - Hospitals SUCK" PR says:

          “Buy your 80%s NOW”

          In particular, buy those 80 pct. Glock-compatable lowers being offered for about 150 a crack.

          That’s your current best shot at a reliable new striker-fired handgun with little paper on it. I’m building each of my (intelligent) sister’s kids one as ‘insurance’.

          Folks, I no longer consider the chance of Trump’s re-election in 2020 as likely. The first fucking thing the Leftists will do when they hold the three branches again is to kill home-built firearms until, er, fucking *if* SCOTUS rules banning home-builts as expressly un-constititutional.

          With Roberts, I just don’t have the trust. I fear he’s gonna make Kennedy’s wishy-washy-ness on the 2A seem tame by comparison.

          *shudder*…

      2. avatar Enuf says:

        That guy does amazing work. He did another AR lower using spent brass. Melted it all down, cast it and machined a beautiful lower. IN BRASS!

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Nice video. Thanks for posting. Workmanship was excellent

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          That was the first one of his I saw. The polished brass looks purdier (go Cyclones – yeah!) than the polished aluminum.

        3. avatar Geoff says:

          Very good work, I watched both the can and brass case to AR lower videos.
          Must be nice to have a $500,000 machine shop.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Anybody read NRA mags? Most recently, an article on the gunmakers in Williamsburg, VA, using hammer and so forth. Opened in 1963, I graduated high school there in 1964 and never heard of it until this article. Anyhow, sale of brass to the colonies was forbidden, all the brass used in those fabulous rifles was scrap, from all manner of other items melted down and then molded and hammered and filed into firearm parts. Here we go again.

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        Too much work! Too much time too, I’ll just go with this:

        https://www.theflatspot.net/ar-lower-flat.html

  3. avatar D says:

    This once-great country has already passed the point of no return. Idiots breed the fastest and they have taken over the asylum.

  4. avatar Defens says:

    If UBC passes at the Federal level, those in Washington state can then have the distinct honor of ignoring two screwed up laws. The leftist pukes here have already filed a mag ban here, which will wither pass through the legislature or be purchased by Bloomberg, Hanauer, Gates and co thru initiative.

    1. avatar mnrobitaille says:

      Did you forget about I-594 from a couple years back?? No firearm transaction can happen within Washington State until a background check is done.

      1. avatar Old Gray Beard says:

        That’s cute that you think everyone is complying with an unenforceable law. Last I heard there had only been one person charged with violating that statute. I’m pretty confident he wasn’t the first person to skip the background check on a private transaction.

      2. avatar Defens says:

        Didn’t forget it at all. Just saying there will both a Federal and state UBC to ignore. About 3/4 of the Washington Sheriffs already said they won’t enforce I-594.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Enforced by magic, or what?

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    I’ve got just about every gun I want. Now to build the ammo supply up. They will tax the bullets too at some point.

  6. avatar joel says:

    I wish this prediction could be placed in the tin foil hat category, but i fear it has a high probability rate…. I’m not happy bob. Not happy…

    1. avatar Geoff "Tom in Oregon was right - Hospitals SUCK" PR says:

      ” I’m not happy bob. Not happy…”

      I would hope not, Joel…

      *snicker* 😉

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    At the very least 4 RINOs.

    1. avatar Enuf says:

      Add Trump to your RINO list.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        Hes not a Rino. He’s a populist who think’s he’s a Rino. In Short, he’s nuts. But he’s our nut and the only nut we got.

        The guys that will come after him will have no nuts at all.

  8. avatar LarryinTX says:

    If passed and signed, it will change the way I vote. It will not change the way I buy or sell guns. I will not comply.

  9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    If they do that I propose we organize a ‘million gun march’ on DC.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Good idea but it won’t work. Gun owners are the most complacent humans to walk the earth.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Probably right about the complacency, but definitely not compliant. Still, can you imagine the looks on the pols’ (and CNN anchors’) faces when one million gun owners march on the Capitol with shouldered rifles?

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Again, won’t happen. There’s non-compliance like “I’m just gonna leave my AR in the basement and tell no one around it” and Lexington\Concord noncompliance. The latter isn’t there.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘The latter isn’t there.’

          Yet.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Not long after I attended another march in DC in 2013 (?), a peaceful million armed man march on DC was proposed and planned. I was right there and ready to volunteer. A plate carrier manufacturer got in touch with me offered a free plate carrier. He didn’t think it was a good idea but he was going to help a patriot out if he was hell bent on going; and I was. A local pawn shop offered up a junky shotgun so the Feds wouldn’t get any firearm of value. I appreciated all of these people. Even though some of them thought it was a bad idea, they were going to help. Then, there were the multitudes of gun owners that hurled insults at us for what we were about to undertake. For them, I have no goodwill.

      The march ended up being called off. I didn’t care who was leading the thing. I just knew that it was well past time to do something bold. I don’t think it will ever happen. I’m not sure that there are enough of us left to answer the call while fellow POTG throw insults and denounce. Be open about your absolutism… Tell our sister and brothers in arms, “Shall not be infringed!” and watch them dance. It’s disheartening, to say the least. Pussies and slaves; the lot of them.

  10. avatar Ing says:

    You’re not wrong. Gun owners to Republicans are like the black vote to Democrats: captive voters.

    Can’t vote for the other side (or won’t) because they hate you…and in consequence, your position will never improve. Your political “protectors” can do just about anything they want to you, as long as they can plausibly say the other side would have done worse.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      I live in CA, it don’t matter who I vote for. My vote has absolutely no value in any way whatsoever.

      We CA repubs had our “taxation without representation” event almost 35 years ago.

      We just live in occupied territory now.

  11. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Yo dingus! Assholes need 60 votes in the Senate just like everyone else. That means flipping 14, not 4. Good grief, does anybody have any sense? And I have difficulty picturing Trump signing it, there’s another 100 reps and 10 Senators, not happening, OK? Cool your jets.

    1. avatar Hammer says:

      Jeez, Larry – don’t let an accurate understanding of how legislation works get in the way of getting people spun up and frothing! 😉

  12. avatar LKB says:

    Uh, no.

    We’ve had a majority in the Senate that was in favor of National Reciprocity, which the House passed. So why hasn’t is been sent to the White House? Because you have to have 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

    Maybe the Dems could get 4 RINO’s to flip. Big deal. They still need 9 more to overcome a filibuster, and there are plenty of strong 2A senators who would mount one. Absent some sort of grand bargain (National Reciprocity, HPA, etc. being added to the bill, which would likely scuttle it with the Dems), I just don’t see the votes being there.

    We need to remain vigilant, but let’s not go all Chicken Little here . . . .

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      All true, but with one addition: it only takes one senator to “mount” a filibuster, and in this day and age, all that senator has to do is to announce one. The old days of standing up, speaking until one drops, and disrupting the business of the senate are long gone.

    2. avatar Jake says:

      II agree that UBC will pass. I hope we have the clout to have it be a system that checks the buyer without becoming a de facto gun registration system. Switzerland shows us how. A variation of the Illinois FOID is another possibility. One upside: that would eliminate the de facto registration system that is current law for purchases from dealers.

      Check the buyer, not the gun.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Without registration, it is far beyond worthless, so unenforceable that “meaningless” would be a better term. If passed without registration, the above plain fact will be “discovered” within a year or two, with a correction via registration promptly proposed.

  13. avatar Jross says:

    private sales were outlawed in my state. sucks because it changes the economics of getting rid of less valuable guns you no longer shoot.

    If a cheap gun can be bought new for 300, and going through an FFL costs $50, then you cant price it at $250 since the person may as well buy new. even at 200, may as well buy new for just a 50 more.

    Sell it lower? almost not even worth the effort, just let it sit in the back of the safe.

    1. avatar Cadeyrn says:

      At least until the real ban is looming, then you’ll be able to sell for 10x the current value.

      But you won’t be able to replace it. So there’s that to consider.

      A lot of the newer generation doesn’t remember “Turn ’em all in” Feinstein. But some do.

      https://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY

      For those who aren’t keeping track, Feinstein said if she had the votes, she’d have done it then. She is still there in the Senate and her bestie Pelosi is probably going to be named Speaker of the House. As things are, they have a decent shot at making semi-auto weapons illegal.

      When you consider the current Dem ploy – to use the Mueller fecal-fest to arrest or indict both Pence and Trump thereby elevating Pelosi to President – they have more than a decent chance. And this is before Justice Ginsberg has to retire for health reasons. If she has to retire with Trump in the office we get another conservative Supreme Court justice and a chance at getting Heller enforced. If Trump and Pence get impeached, then everything gained will be destroyed in short order.

      The Democrats are going for the brass ring here. They want it all and will do anything to get it. Don’t think for a moment that they’re going to do something mild like universal background. They are coming for your guns. Now. They will do everything in their power to take away guns because it is all that restrains them from imposing their Glorious Vision for absolute state control.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Trump and Pencehave handed it to Democrats by lying about their secret meetings with the Russian government cut outs.

        Vice president Pence was in charge of the transition team and either you about the Russian conversations or should have known. That makes him either a co-conspirator or incompetent, either way he’s unqualified.

        And the leadership of the NRA going to Russia to meet with the oligarchs and Russian officials means there are apparently no patriots at the highest levels of the NRA.

        People of the gun will need to look elsewhere for a savior.

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Oh for christsakes, anyone with half a brain can see that meeting was set up by the same group of Dems that cooked up the pee dossier in order to have something to point to.

  14. avatar Eli2016 says:

    Seriously. TTAG needs to chill. They’re starting to sound like CNN. That’s the last thing we need.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I guess you haven’t been watching all those NRA videos.

  15. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Well, I live in NY and le’me tell ya’, misery loves company.

  16. avatar Shire-man says:

    I seem to recall TTAG predicting carry reciprocity and HPA passing spring 2018. Probably do just as well dusting off the Ouija board and asking Miss Cleo what she sees.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Not all of TTAG. I said it would never happen under Trump. I was pretty vocal that Trump was not a friend of the 2A and would nwvwr support the HPA or National Reciprocity. But nope, all I got was “but Hillary!!!” as if the entire Republican party forgot there was a primary election.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        You don’t get credit unless you cited the filibuster. If all you did was mumble RINO and Trump is a gun grabber then you aren’t any smarter than anybody else here. It didn’t matter which Republicans won because they wouldn’t have the 60 votes to shutdown debate and pass HPA and reciprocity; and nobody in their right mind was going to kill the filibuster over guns.

    2. avatar RMS1911 says:

      Her real name is Youree Dell Harris.

  17. avatar Sua Sponte says:

    “I’m a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but”

    And that’s where I stop listening to you because, no, no you don’t support it.

  18. avatar pewpewpew says:

    I’d guess it will end up getting passed as a bargaining chip for some other legislation we don’t actually care about but the Republicans do.

    You know, pass this along with some extra funding for some new warplane research that will be a clusterfudge just like the last one.

    1. avatar SouthAl says:

      This.

      Or, after the first mass shooting during the new congress, the House will pass magazine restrictions and UBC. In the emotional wake, it would not surprise me to see the number of Republican Senators who fear not supporting it, or succumb to the emotional appeals, or follow Trump’s lead, go beyond the 14 needed (so heavily touted as the bulwark in upstream comments). I do not know enough about individual Senators to predict who these might be, and hope I am wrong. But, such a circumstance could quite easily change the behavior of many Senators who might now be thought to be solid.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        And therein lies the flaw in your assertion.

        Besides the four RINO’s listed in the article, Collins is a squish on this.

        McCain, Corker, and Heller might have been sellout candidates, but they’re gone.

        Maybe Graham, Ernst, Fisher (and any of them would be a stretch).

        Gardner and Murkowski might be sympathetic, but would be signing their own political death warrants if they did so (and they know it).

        That still leaves you far short of the 60 votes needed, and the remaining GOP senators are all A or A+ NRA rated.

        Biggest hazard would be if GOP leadership allows UBC to be attached to some must-pass bill (which is what they should have at least tried to do with National Reciprocity). But if McTurtle were to do so, he’d have a revolt in his caucus, and there would be a lot of pressure to add NR to the bill if you are going to add UBC, and that would kill the whole thing.

        Again, we have 53 GOP Senators. Most of the more notorious RINO squishes are now gone. Yes, we still have a few that cannot be counted on, but the votes aren’t there to break a filibuster. Remain viligant, but there’s no need to panic.

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Dems threatened Collins with a GoFundMe if she voted for Kavanaugh. And that got under her skin.

          We need a GoFundMe from our side to keep her in line. In the meantime

          I’m trying to talk Kaitlin Bennet into moving to Maine and running for Collins’ seat.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    TTAG also predicted Hillary over Trump.

    1. avatar Geoff "Tom in Oregon was right - Hospitals SUCK" PR says:

      I was resigned to that very scenario, Ralph.

      And tickled pink when that prediction went *splat* like I did just before X-mas on some broad’s front bumper and windshield. Followed by the roadway.

      (No real worries folks, I got off from that relatively Scott-free, *zero*neck, head, or spinal injuries, mom was right, I am hard-headed but I’ll be fun at airport security with a Titanium shin, and a stainless plate for good measure. OR anesthesia is hallucinogenic as hell in horse-tranquilizer quantities…)

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        I wish Florida got off Scott free

  20. avatar Nanashi says:

    We know which side the NRA will be on.

  21. avatar frank speak says:

    join as many pro-gun groups as you can….we’re going to need them!

  22. avatar neiowa says:

    There are a LOT of political neophytes /fools here. Starting with “Luis”

  23. avatar CZJay says:

    What they call “universal background checks” is simply gun registration. They want to be able to record every sale and transfer ever made. Then they will move on to passing an electronic database to replace the current system that was intentionally designed to make it difficult for the government to deal with the records.

    “Red flag” laws is a form of gun confiscation. It gives government the power to accuse you of being a danger, then confiscate your guns to protect you and others.

    Combine the gun database and gun confiscation orders without due process… They won’t need to start a civil war or a gun buy back. They will just come after gun owners one by one. Of course it’s all about protecting the children and public. The NRA and Trump supports it, by the way.

    Gun owners will not stand and fight. They will complain their Patreon funds are shrinking and their Youtube channel is being censored, thus making it hard for them to protect the 2nd Amendment from Republicans and Democrats.

    1. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

      “What they call “universal background checks” is simply gun registration.”

      And that’s our only hope at beating it at SCOTUS.

      When (read, *if*) we we get a RELIABLE SCOTUS…

  24. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Outlawing private sales…ok…that lados unenforceable. I dont like it and will write my reps, but I know they never read anything er send them. I keep writing and all I get back are pre written statements that have nothing to do with what I’m writing about. Even if it does pass I dont think anyone will comply.

    1. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

      “Outlawing private sales…ok…that lados unenforceable.”

      Given enough time, It damn sure will be.

      We aren’t the only ones playing the the long game with the 2A, people..

  25. avatar jack says:

    So…how will it be determined that past private xfers were done Pre FUBGC?
    Admittedly, serial #’s could..play a role but only so far.
    There are waaaaaaayyyyyyy to many guns in circulation NOW!

    Yes Fight it, but the big picture?
    This means NOTHING.
    Other than to claim a Propaganda Victory. A Typical USgubment ploy. A ploy of the Evil.

    1. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

      Given enough *TIME*, it becomes tradition, and then history.

      Remember the recent reviews here on supposedly-‘Scholarly’ books about how the west wasn’t really won by men of steely resolve and guns? How it was all a marketing gimmick by gun manufacturer’s?

      They are carefully constructing a *lie* and hiding it by giving it a veneer of credible scholarship. That’s how far they are willing to go to destroy gun rights.

      Don’t discount that…

  26. avatar TommyJay says:

    If you have ever contributed to the NRCC Congressional campaign or the Senatorial campaign, tell them what you think of this.

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…got UBC in ILLinois. Nothing much changed. Lock N load.

  28. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Calm down:

    “The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex just needs to flip four GOP members of the Senate to their side for a majority.”

    No. They need 14 to flip. 14. Yes read it again, 14. That’s 10, plus 4. That’s not going to happen. The current rules require 60 votes to pass. As long as the GOP holds the senate they’re not going to revert the rules back to the simple majority crap. If the democrats manage to take the senate in the future then yes, I imagine they will be willing to use the “nuclear option”. Unfortunately with the current house and president we are back to playing defense for the next six years. But it is not impossible for us to keep the senate all those years. Granted, I’ll give you that this is way too close for comfort, being as the senate is the only branch that will derail the coming flurry of anti gun bills. Rest assured there will be more then this coming down the pipe.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      It is 60 votes to cut off debate. Majority vote to win. So, it is not a matter of getting “14” votes to pass, but 14 to move the bill to a vote. That means, 50 Dimwitocrats vote to cut debate so they can vote for the UBC, and 14 Republicrats who want to vote against. This ends debate, and the bill moves forward to actual vote. Voting to end debate does not pass a bill.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Most if the people who post here couldn’t pass a high schools civics test. Their knowledge of the Constitution comes down to their ability to quote the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        To be fair, if you go to a liberal website, their ability to quote the constitution ends at “We…”.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          But we are supposed to know.

  29. avatar Michael says:

    The word “but”, in any statement which is part of a political pronouncement, is a road sign designating that anything after that word is going to be Bravo Sierra.-30-

  30. avatar possum says:

    Am I reading this UBC thing right? I can’t sell a gun unless the buyer has a background check? How do I do a background check? I can’t understand how the government can keep me from selling something that is private and legally owned. MAGA looks more like make America a nation of law breakers to me.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “How do I do a background check?”

      You go to an FFL for the transaction.

      My LGS will not perform private sales NICS transaction. Doesn’t want the risk that the buyer will be legal, but the seller not. Private sellers are not (yet) required to also undergo a background check to “ensure” they legally possess the firearm being sold.

  31. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Universally IGNORED, even if passed.

    1. How are the cops supposed to catch a crack dealer selling pistols in a back alley without a background check if they can not catch him selling crack?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “How are the cops supposed to catch a crack dealer selling pistols in a back alley without a background check if they can not catch him selling crack?”

        Because making something more illegaler just works, period.

        Because if we can have laws that enshrine our desire to think we are something we are not, then the thinking that gun control laws work is all the justification we need.

        Because the government already said that if we “believe” gun control laws make us safer, such laws are constitutionally valid.

        Because at least we are doing something (with more laws); just sitting around watching means we must accept that there is evil in the world, that there is something we are just powerless to manipulate entirely to our advantage, that we have to live with people among us who really want to hurt us. In truth, there is no societal problem we cannot solve if we have sufficient control over the populace.

        Because no law is totally useless; with enough laws, the randomness of effectiveness is additive, and when combined, will result in some useful number of successes – more law, more effectiveness.

        OK, now that feels better.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So, you are assuming there will be no laws with intended adverse consequences?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So, you are assuming there will be no laws with intended adverse consequences?”

          Nope. All laws are created to have adverse consequences. Just as they are designed to have “unintended consequences”. Never presume stupidity, ignorance or incompetence when evil intent will explain.

  32. avatar bunny says:

    They need 60 to end the cloture. The democrats MIGHT get three but they sure as hell aren’t getting 15 votes from the GOP

    This article feels like the 2A version of tabloid celebrity nonsense.

  33. avatar tdiinva says:

    Just like they passed the Assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook. /Sarc. There aren’t 60 votes to get cloture.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Afterthought:. There are several potential Republican yes votes who will not want to go on record. Therefore the Republican caucus is going to see few if any defections on a cloture vote. Why kick the hornet’s nest if it’s going fail anyway?

  34. avatar strych9 says:

    As others have pointed out, passage of this bill by the Senate is unlikely.

    Yes, the bill could pass on a 51-49 vote margin or even 50-49 if the VP casts a tie-breaking vote in favor of the bill.

    However, to get to that point requires an end to debate, AKA “cloture”. Senate rules, under normal procedure do not have a “sunset” on debate. Debate is unlimited and can go on forever until one of three things happens: The bill is withdrawn from floor consideration, the Senate postpones a decision (until a specific date or indefinitely or tables the measure) and moves on to something else or cloture is invoked ending debate one [Senate] business day plus 30 hours later (unless the Senate agrees to end debate earlier than 30 hours).

    Invoking cloture requires 60 votes (or whatever 3/5ths of the Senate works out to at the time provided a quorum is present) for any legislation unless the “nuclear option” has been employed on that specific bill (this is not the case with appointments, which as a class of decisions can have the rule change applied). “Going nuclear” on a specific bill requires 67 votes (2/3rds of the Senate at the time) in favor of the rule change.

    A filibuster, as we know it, is not required to block a bill in the Senate since the filibuster is really the right to unlimited debate rather than someone talking endlessly. Cloture must be invoked to end debate or the debate cannot end in a way that moves to a vote. Since there are only a set number of motions that may be “received” when there is an “open question” failing to end debate effectively kills the bill for the time being because there are only a few ways for the Senate to move forward with anything other than debating the current question at hand.

    No one has to read a phonebook or anything you simply have to have a situation where you either cannot garner 60 votes to end debate or cannot find 16 Senators willing to sign a cloture motion. At that point the bill will either be withdrawn to save it or it another vote will postpone the bill or move past it without further consideration or a vote on the actual measure.

    Therefore, other than appointments, you have to have a situation where at 3/5ths of the Senate wants a vote on a specific bill before that bill can be voted upon. Generally speaking that means that you need 3/5ths of the Senate to support the bill in question since it’s rare that people vote for cloture in an attempt to “get people on the record” as is done in the House.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What it requires to pass is a complete abandonment of any pro 2A pretenses by the entire Republican Party, a declaration of a race between the two parties to see who can strip the people of their rights the quickest. Which may result in a contest to see who can whack the moles the quickest.

  35. avatar Mad Max says:

    As I recall, Manchin-Toomey had National Reciprocity included with UBC.

  36. avatar m. says:

    gun “control” = a**hole, d-rat d**ksuckers come & get it

  37. We have that now in N.Y. what happened is that they say an FFL can only charge $10 for transfer so what some FFL’s do is charge $25-$75 for a background check ,even if you are a permit holder

  38. avatar BD says:

    A bill to ban privately manufactured 3D firearms, and the marketing and selling of the kits, aka, ‘‘3–D Firearms Prohibitions Act’’

    Apparently homemade, unserialized, 2D firearms are permitted.

    https://www.glockstore.com/assets/images/email/BILLS-115hr7115ih.pdf

  39. avatar FiftycalTX says:

    It takes 60 votes to pass a law in the Senate, dumbass. And that is ONLY if Cocaine Mitch will bring the bill up. AND THEN President Trump has to sign it. Not a forgono conclusion.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It takes 60 votes to pass a law in the Senate”

      Can you direct us to a reference for that?

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        It takes 60 votes to end debate so that is the effective number of votes to pass a bill. Another F in civics.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not all bills require 60 votes to end debate. Not all bills are “debated”. Cloture is not a mandatory process. The Senate Majority Leader has great latitude in deciding the amount of debate permitted. The SML can decide that each Senator may debate a specific number of times within a set frame (SML also controls what constitutes a “day”). The SML can also change the rules (by majority vote) regarding the number of votes required to impose cloture.

          If every bill required unlimited debate (and required cloture to move to a vote), virtually nothing would get done, because no other business may be taken up during a filibuster.

          To remind you of your own words, you noted that 60 votes were required to pass a bill. There is a huge difference between ending debate and passing a bill. Once debate ends (under whichever rule is implemented), only a simple majority is required to actually “pass” a bill.

          If you are going to teach civics, please know and use terms accurately. It can also be helpful to become familiar with the rules of procedure for House and Senate.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I used the adjective “effective.” If you can’t close debate you can’t vote so if you can’t get 60 votes got cloture you can’t pass a bill. Tax and spending bills that have gone through the reconciliation process cannot be filibustered and now thanks to Harry Reid Presidential appointments are not subject to a filibuster.
          But for our purposes here it’s 60 votes.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But for our purposes here it’s 60 votes.”

          But only if SML does not limit debate through Senate rules. The cloture rule is not automatic. So, for our purposes here, the issue is not 60 votes, but the SML not controlling debate.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Really meaningless discussion. How about discussing why we do not have a border wall? If we only need 50 votes + VP.

  40. avatar DeadConstitution says:

    We take control of all 3 branches of government and we get nothing. Meanwhile, the Dems take control of the House and they can pass whatever liberally ‘moderate’ trash they want. The 60 vote threshold in the Senate is unconstitutional as applied and needs to go.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      A prime example of Constitutional ignorance in action. Article I gives each House of Congress the right to make it’s own rules. Couple that ignorance with gullibility and you get this kind of post.

      1. avatar DeadConstitution says:

        You are right they do have a right to make their own rules via Article 1, Section 5. That is a well thought out and presented argument. Kudos. That said, the 60 vote majority requirement to ‘end debate’ has upended the simple majority requirement the constitution requires.
        In essence, it’s an as-applied violation of another explicit clause of the constitution. Having a higher thresh hold to end debate than to pass a bill essentially denies a more explicit part of the constitution from having any effect, by using a less specific part. The tyranny of the minority is still tyranny none the less.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “the simple majority requirement the constitution requires”

          I admit to misreading a lot of things, but after reading through the entire constitution, I find nothing that mandates “majority” voting for every instance where voting is invoked. I find specifics, but no general order established by the constitution that overrules Art 1, Sec 5.

          Seems that if the founders (smart as they were) intended every instance of voting would be determined by simple majority (or even majority of those present), they would have written that proposition directly into the constitution. Where there are “super” majorities called out, one cannot easily conclude that except for those specifics, all voting, in all instances, in the entire country will proceed by simple majority. Indeed, the founders were skeptical, in not fearful, of majority rule – as in pure democracy.

          If you stop to think about it, in 200+ years, someone long ago would have challenged House and Senate rules that “violated” the constitution re voting on legislation. But, in reality, if the constitution dictated majority rule for all voting, and House and Senate rules actually did/do violate the constitution…so what? Claiming something to be unconstitutional is useless until there is a binding court ruling to that effect. With sufficient funds (Gates, Bloomy and Sorryos would love to fund your law suit over House and Senate rules), you could be the first in the nation to challenge legislative rules a violating the constitution.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, there certainly is not a blanket “majority” requirement under by the constitution, as should be obvious by the numbers required to amend the constitution!

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, there certainly is not a blanket “majority” requirement under by the constitution, as should be obvious by the numbers required to amend the constitution!”

          Of course not.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The 60 vote threshold in the Senate is unconstitutional as applied and needs to go.”

      Why is it unconstitutional? Do you suppose that House and Senate rules have not been challenged as constitutionally permissible?

      See Article 1, Section 5 regarding rules of procedure for House and Senate.

  41. avatar Sharpshooter says:

    And when there are MILLION of illegal purchases, those will be ignored as coming from repressed sub-groups.
    Like now.

    1. I was unaware that rich, white people were a repressed sub-group.

      Was that supposed to be sarcasm?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Since nobody will be keeping any records, no one will know it’s rich white folk. Sh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet!

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