House Democrats to Introduce National Universal Background Check Bill Today

Nancy Pelosi evil claw of gun control

courtesy washingtontimes.com and AP

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House ten short years ago. But they wouldn’t or couldn’t make any progress on one of their most dearly-held policy goals: passing gun control legislation to roll back civilian gun ownership and limit Second Amendment rights.

But in the aftermath of Las Vegas and Parkland, one of the primary issues far left Dems ran on in the 2018 midterms was gun control…wait, no, “gun violence prevention.” No, that’s not it, it’s “gun safety” right?

Whatever the euphemism du jour they’re using, House Democrats seem convinced they have a mandate to do something.

“Since the shooting at Sandy Hook, the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force has been fighting for a chance to pass legislation that will help save lives,” (task force chairman Rep. Mike) Thompson said in a statement. “Finally, with our new majority that ran on helping to prevent gun violence, we will introduce a bipartisan, universal background checks bill. We will hold hearings, we will have a vote, and this legislation will finally pass the House.”

Today, House Democrats will try to make good on that promise. Why today? Because it’s the eighth anniversary of the Giffords shooting.

“I am thrilled that for the first time in decades, the United StatesHouse of Representatives will no longer sit silent as our nation reels from the growing gun violence epidemic,” the former Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords said in a statement. The bill will be introduced on the eighth anniversary of the Tucson, Arizona, mass shooting that targeted one of Giffords’ constituent meetings. Giffords, who survived being shot in the head in an attack that left six people dead, now leads one of the country’s leading gun control groups.

Well, it’s at least refreshing that the UK’s Guardian referred to Giffords’ anti-gun org for what it is.

So Speaker Pelosi will, with great fanfare, ruffles and flourishes, announce her effort at outlawing private gun sales today.

Does it matter to the speaker that one of the nation’s most dedicated anti-gun advocates, UC-Davis’s Garen Wintemute, recently published the results of a decade-long study demonstrating that universal background checks are completely ineffective in preventing gun violence and suicides?” No. Not at all.

Will House Democrats acknowledge that gun-related crime in the US is at historic lows and violent crime and murder rates fell in America’s 30 largest cities between 2017 and 2018? Don’t bother them with details.

Pelosi and her lockstep majority will portray an America in the midst of a “gun violence” epidemic, a rash of mass shootings, murder and mayhem that presents a clear and present danger to our way of life. Hence, their justification for rolling back your gun rights, one bill at a time.

They’re almost sure to have also lined up a few GOP supporters for their 2A-impinging efforts. They’ll no doubt have a some of the usual blue state Republican suspects like New York’s Peter King on hand to nod with grave looks of concern on their faces while they provide the fig leaf of bipartisanship.

The bill’s a sure bet for passage in the House as virtually no Democrats who might oppose it — if there actually are any — would dare buck the speaker or their port-leaning base by voting no on gun control. Its prospects in the Senate are considerably more dim. Supporters there would need to cobble together 60 votes and even with a few squishes on the GOP side, they’re not likely to get that done.

Unless, of course, Dems manage to attach the background check bill to a continuing resolution. In that case, Republicans may face the choice of voting for the bill or allowing the government to run out of borrowing authority money. If that happens, things could get interesting.

 

comments

  1. avatar TommyGNR says:

    DOA in the Senate. My bet is McConnell won’t even bring it to the floor.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell might very well be the ONLY person stopping this bill from becoming law. If McConnell allows this to come to a vote, I am 90% confident that 60 U.S. Senators will give yes votes.

      1. avatar Michael in AK says:

        Sadly, I believe you are correct. Plenty of establishment Republicans don’t want the unwashed masses with firearms. How will they subject us to tyranny if we can fight back?

        1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Same way they’ve been doing for a century? Pass the bills, sign them into law, have the Supreme Court rubber stamp them, and then the people go back to sleep.

          We can’t even get people to vote in this country. You’d never rouse them to resist by force of arms. Besides, isn’t “American Voice Has Talent Bachelor Who Thinks He Can Dance” on tonight? Who has time for the future of the country?

        2. avatar DJ says:

          You’re entirely correct neither Republicans or Democrats want an armed population. Imagine Yellow Vest with 400 to 600 firearms. NO government wants the people to rule over them. Republicans would be more than happy to say we had to pass the bill to see what’s in it.

          You can keep your guns (Doctor) you can keep your ammunition (Health Plan).

        3. avatar RMS1911 says:

          Tick tock it’s almost time to correctly exercise the second as originally intended.
          Let the culling of globalist scum begin.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        False. It wouldn’t get more than 52 vote for cloture

        1. avatar DDay says:

          This UBC bill is MUCH more restrictive than manchin toomey bill from 2013. That one exempted exchanges for family members, to borrow a gun for hunting, exempted rural areas with no FFL I believe, etc.

          This one is a full on ban of transfers and MUCH MUCH more restrictive than manchin toomey. It’s DOA in the senate

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          tdiinva,

          I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          There are Republicans who don’t want to be on the record for gun control even if they support it. It is much easier for them to let it die without a vote

    2. avatar Rocky Flinstone says:

      It better be DOA. This is nonsense. Only people who want this are those who do not own (or plan to own) firearms. This puts an unnecessary burden (and cost) on people.

    3. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Hoping that is the case, especially whenever the next event occurs where the demands to “do something” are bombarded across all media and social media. But I don’t think we can afford to be complacent either.

      Background checks don’t do much, but these universal laws will seek to criminalize the lawful seller for having a private transaction, not the already prohibited person. Currently the main reason why we can’t do private background checks is… NICs won’t even let you if you aren’t an FFL. If they had a private voluntary system for basically showing a seller you aren’t a prohibited person, people might use it when selling to buyers they don’t know. Probably don’t even need to change the law to build that.

      Instead you would have to pull in an FFL to the transaction which would be silly and expensive and they will either hate it or make it expensive so it is worth their while. And then if law enforcement ever finds you with a gun, you will need to prove you bought it legally and had a background check, or you might have an unchecked, illegal weapon right?

      1. avatar SteveO says:

        You nailed the intent of the ubc that will be proposed: make it harder and more cpensive to exercise 2A. That is what is called a feature, not a bug.

  2. avatar ollie says:

    The only thing for certain is that this proposed bill is full of errors, mistakes and constitutional fubars.

  3. avatar Timothy says:

    Waiting for all the anti gun POS on this site to talk about how someone’s uncle who gets them a shotgun should be a felon. You’ll know the ones, they claim that the 2nd amendment shouldn’t apply to anyone under 21 and that we should ban bump stocks. They’re the ones with a bolt action rifle who don’t understand that once the scary “assault rifles” are banned, other even more anti gun people will come after the uber deadly, long range “sniper rifles” next.

  4. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    You have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

  5. avatar anonymoose says:

    Yeah, make everyone go through the same background checks that the guy who shot Gabby giffords in the face went through…wait how would that help anything? Can someone name a mass shooter in recent memory who actually bought his gun in a parking lot? I can only think of the bowlcut white supremacist kid and the black supremacist copkiller guy from 2016.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      anonymoose,

      The blond bowl-cut white supremacist actually did purchase his handgun through a federal licensed firearm dealer — which received an “okay to buy” endorsement from the federal instant criminal background check system.

      The problem in that instance was that the background check system should have issued a “deny the sale” reply, but failed to do that because they were somehow unaware of his previous criminal exploits.

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      Columbine shooters had a girlfriend straw buy a rifle at a gun show and then did private purchase of a handgun.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        Girlfriend also did straw purchase of 2 shotguns.

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        Girlfriend wasn’t prosecuted, despite breaking existing laws about providing guns to minors. The girlfriend was used as propaganda for checks at gun shows, claiming she wouldn’t have done the straw purchase if she had to do background check. The pistol seller was convicted of providing handgun to underaged.

  6. avatar little horn says:

    so what, FGST.

  7. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    I know it is 22 months until the next House election, but there are a number of Democrats who could not survive a real election contest if they came out as totally “anti-Gun.” House elections are heavily influenced by the usual “incumbent” advantages, plus the power of uninformed urban Demo voters, but they are STILL local elections and local issues still have impact at the polls. Many of the current Demo House members live in districts where enough people own guns – that it will make a difference if a Representative votes to prevent a dad from giving his grown daughter a firearm, or votes to make it a crime to let your best friend shoot your rifle at the range while standing next to you! (that is exactly how I would describe the proposed legislation). This legislation may have problems even in the House.

  8. No it not! Not unless it buried somewhere inside H.R.38: “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” of 2017. The ONLY Gun Bill being submitted in the US House of Representatives today…

    1. avatar David in MA says:

      Go online and read the DICK ACT, it is real and not a joke, it is a Constitutionally passed law by a previous congress…… then read the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and then the good sounding restrictive Communist inspired UN AGENDA 21, all online.

  9. avatar Bob Jones says:

    We need Universal Background Checks on all persons wanting to enter the US, whether legally or illegally. Any persons in government custody or control who have not been checked should be immediately sent back to their own country. Require repayment of expelled travel expenses prior to being eligible for a background check.

  10. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Universal Background Check legislation is a boon to politicians. Everyone can get on board with little risk. UBCs harm no one, accomplish nothng, however, there are points to be scored with the majority, vast majority of voters. The legislation lets everyone feel good about “doing something”, especially since it will cost them zero come election time (there are not enough POTG to matter, not enough 2A single issue voters).

    Yes, there is a dollar cost to gun buyers, but no immediate physical injury. POTG gotta understand that only POTG are aware of nuances of gun control, everyone else is neutral, at best. While there is dollar cost, infringements on constitutional amendments are largely invisible…so what’s the problem?

    The sad truth is that unless 100 million gun owners vote NO to politicians who think they have the pro-gun gang “locked in”, UBC will be a non player in coming elections. The proof is there to see….anti-gun politicians are never voted out of office because they weren’t rabid 2A defenders.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      It’s a backdoor registry. Don’t ever buy the line about the ATF not keeping all their records electronically.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        My brother-in-law (the anti-gunner and socialist) once owned a document management company. Literally tons of paper documents were converted to searchable digital files, every year. Such a conversion process would be a lucrative contract for someone to provide for the BATAFAEE.

        A firearms registry is a waste of time. More fun to go with probabilities: allegedly 100 million citizens own firearms; 1 in 3, roughly. Therefore, there is probable cause to conclude virtually every adult has at least one firearm. Gotta be some illegal possession in there, somewhere.

        When time comes, just start arresting everyone, jailing until the suspects prove they do not own firearms. If you want to be less subtle, do neighborhood sweeps during the day (fewer owners at home, and no-knock and warrantless searches will be easier to conduct). Since most gun owners will not be at home, the risk of armed resistance is lowered; smash in the doors, and conduct a thorough and damage riddled physical search (leave apologetic not if nothing found).

        Even more simple, progressively freeze all bank accounts, credit cards and payroll systems, then force everyone to prove they don’t have an illegal firearm. The most time-consuming method would be to make proof of legal ownership a part of every traffic stop, or other ticket eligible violation.

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

          “The most time-consuming method would be to make proof of legal ownership a part of every traffic stop, or other ticket eligible violation.”

          You’re thinking far too small.

          More likely, *any* police contact whatsoever. If police knock on your door, they will ‘instruct’ you to open your gun safe before you open your door…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “More likely, *any* police contact whatsoever. ”

          Good point. In future, I will add that element to my projection/forecast.

    2. avatar balais says:

      IMO, if such a law is passed

      1.) they need to grant civilians access to NCIS online to conduct a private sale
      2.) There should be a purchasing permit option where a gun owner can obtain a ‘license’ good for a year or two. Kind of like a concealed carry permit. Or give concealed permits additional ‘sway’ when it comes to purchasing a gun. Either or both.

      This way they could get gun owners on board.

      I would agree with passing UBCs with a guarantee that magazine limits, AW bans, and semi-auto bans will not be brought to the table. We all know the answer to that one.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        There are no guarantees with government, except more government.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” IMO, if such a law is passed

        1.) they need to grant civilians access to NCIS online to conduct a private sale”

        The intent behind UBC is to stop private transfers. The anti-gun mob really isn’t as stupid as many think. They know private citizens cannot access NICS. So how does the requirement facilitate slowing private sales? If a legal gun owner wants to make a private transaction, an FFL is required. FFLs are not required to process private transfers. So…no legal transfer. Next, the private buyer does something to cause the gun to obtain police attention. The private buyer identifies you as the seller. Both are now entangled in the legal system.

        See how that works?

        What is the risk, and is it worth the entertainment value?

  11. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Cannot impose socialism or communism without taking the guns first. Not safety, not gun control, it’s CONTROL of the population. Pure and simple.

    1. avatar Chiefton says:

      Absolutely correct. EVERY dictatorship, socialist government disarmed the citizens before taking over control of them. The government has the only armed forces and will definitely use them to control the masses. Take money from those that have it and keep it for themselves under the guise of getting it for the “less privileged”. You might even hear things like calling for 70% tax brackets and universal background checks from a future socialist, dictatorship government. Of wait, I already heard that somwhere.

  12. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Let’s all sing ths together,
    “making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who’s naughty or nice…”

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      More like making a list of whose door gets kicked in at 4 AM

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Fingers crossed it’s mine.

        1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          Mine too.

        2. avatar possum says:

          here I be

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Gonna find out who’s been naughty, and who’s been naaaaughty.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Why is Santa so jolly?

      He knows where all the naughty girls live.

  13. avatar Swarf says:

    You know what? The Republicans controlled the House and the Senate for the past two years, and what pro gun legislation did they pass?

    Screw the lot of them.

    1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      ^^^This…and the presidency…

      1. avatar RA-15 says:

        Both of above !!

    2. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Well, had Hillary been elected with a democrat Congress, the US would have Australian Style Gun Control now.
      No pumps or semi-autos, even pellet guns registered and no airsoft. There is very little chance of any future “Pro-Gun” US federal government, stalemate is the best that will be possible. Forget NFA repeal, HPA et al…..won’t happen.

      If the dems take it all in 2020, which is likely, we will be turning them all in in 2021.

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

        Nah, *every* semi-auto goes on the NFA…

      2. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

        It won’t be turn in unless that person is totally brain dead. Mass confiscation was tried by the British and we know how well that worked out! Live free or die!

        1. avatar Bob Jones says:

          It won’t be the government who takes your guns, that task will be subjugated to banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and utilities. Gun in the house……insurance cancelled…..followed by calling of mortgage. Gun in the house….unsafe for power/water/cable company employees…power/water/cable cut off. School district…the kids of gun owners are too dangerous…expel them. House burns down and guns are found in the debris…felonious assault on firemen….go to jail. And on and on. Only wealthy folks in rural areas will be immune to voluntary confiscation.

          The present “Bump Stock” brouhaha is really all about setting up fresh precedents for non-reimbursed “confiscations”.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      For the umpteenth blankety-blank time, REPUBLICANS DID NOT CONTROL THE U.S. SENATE for the past two years because of the U.S. Senate’s 60 vote cloture rule.

      When there are 60 or more Republican U.S. Senators in office (enough to satisfy the U.S. Senate’s requirement for 60 votes to allow the full Senate to vote whether to pass or defeat the bill under consideration), THEN (and only then) can we say that Republicans control the U.S. Senate.

      Please understand how the U.S. Senate works. They actually have to vote TWICE to pass a bill. The first vote must pass to allow the full Senate to vote on whether or not to actually pass the bill. Yes, you heard that right. The Senate has to vote on whether or not to vote on a bill. If 60 or more U.S. Senators do not agree that the full U.S. Senate should vote on a bill, then the bill is dead and the U.S. Senate will not vote to pass or defeat the bill.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Please understand how the U.S. Senate works.”

        The Senate rules can be changed by the majority, at any time. Cloture is not a constitutional provision, nor an amendment to the constitution. Harry Reid blew-up the Senate rules for approving court nominations. That change was exploited by the Republicrats to seat Kavanaugh. If Supreme Court nominations can be ratified/approved/confirmed by simple majority, why does the cloture rule exist at all? You can bet the Demoncrats will have not regard for the cloture rule when they gain the Senate again.

  14. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    NEVER IN RECORDED HISTORY HAS A DICTATOR OR KING EVER ALLOWED CIVILIAN WEAPONS OR ARMS WITHOUT STRICT CONTROL OF WHO WHAT WHEN AND MOST IMPORTANT “WHERE”

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    Since HR 38 was left to die this one can join it. The House comes up with all kinds of things that go nowhere.

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

      “The House comes up with all kinds of things that go nowhere.”

      You do realize we have to defend about *20* Senate seats in 2 years?

      There is a VERY good chance in 2 years the Leftists have all 3 branches in their filthy claws. Just *imagine* all the ‘gun safety’ we can expect!!!

      1. avatar 22winmag says:

        Who is “we”?

        Most of us grew up and quit playing the D/R Left/Right mind game a long time ago.

  16. avatar LarryinTX says:

    And I will yawn, as soon as I stop giggling. Both unconstitutional and unenforceable, if it passes I will ignore it.

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Democrats are being consistent. They have alwaus been anti-civil rights. Especially Liberal Democrats, who have been particularly racist toward black people.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I miss the edit button.

      1. avatar MouseGun says:

        We all du

  18. avatar Anonymous says:

    I think that stretches way past the commerce clause. They justified FFLs and such by means of “interstate commerce” and a sale from one person to another person within the same state is outside the federal government’s scope of operation.

    1. avatar binder says:

      The already learned from the Safe School Act. They will just pit in that the Commerce Clause applies and it will be good to go.

      1. avatar mikeb0 says:

        The Supreme Court has been looking at the commerce clause a little differently lately. It may not pass muster.

        The reason there is generally no question with an FFL is that they are Federally Licensed so the Federal Government can obviously put conditions on the License.

        I don’t know why some Congress person doesn’t just point this out to them. If Congress thought putting restrictions on intrastate sales was constitutional they would have been in the original bills setting up the background checks.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      No, it was justified on the basis that they could make it a condition of the FFL license. Because the licensees have to comply with federal law, the bill violated no constitutional provision. However, that same analysis does not apply to person to person sales. This time they will have to justify it on the commerce clause, even though these are entirely in state sales not processed through an FFL. Intrastate sales require the use of an FFL. It’ll be s sticky wicket.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” Intrastate sales require the use of an FFL. It’ll be s sticky wicket.”

        It might be useful to review the background and ruling in the Heart of Atlanta Motel civil rights case: commerce clause invoked because of toothpicks.

  19. avatar mark1955 says:

    Fully expect an FBI staged Hoax ( Where no one actually gets shot ) mass “Shooting” in the near future, to Try and “Grease the skids” for passage of this bill!

  20. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Anyone got a gun for sale???

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Sold 2 this morning. I think gis name was Tim, or Tom or something. Nice guy. Now he has a new 1911 in 45 and a model 70 in 338WM.

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    Better think of something else.

  22. avatar binder says:

    Simple, if someone can’t buy a gun, put it on their driver’s licence / state ID. No FFL needed.

    1. avatar CZ Rider says:

      Not intrusive and authoritarian enough, and it actually stands a chance of being inexpensive and somewhat effective. Dems wouldn’t support it. Also this would seem to make it a state level issue.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Well I don’t trust ANYTHING the republitards do. Or Donnie…already got a version of UBC in ILLinois. I’m more concerned about my chit state. BREAKING: 25 year old black woman shoots an armed robber to death at a CTA bus stop. ON CAMERA. Local lamestream media doesn’t go nuts😄

  24. avatar possum says:

    I did not know Pelosi was a kung Fu master, check out her screaming eagle claw pose, why she’s just ready to scratch your eyes out.

  25. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Even if you can’t see it. It’s my middle finger up in front of their collective faces.

    1. avatar possum says:

      broken fingers ,

  26. avatar CZJay says:

    The U.K. has their own arms control bill [Offensive Weapons] being debated. They want more gun control although semi auto rifles are already banned. They want to ban MARS actions rifles, which follow the law as written. When they have major problems with knives they also need more gun control.

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/lords-offensive-weapons-bill/

    I wonder what the U.S. government would consider the MARS actions to be, particularly in California.

  27. avatar Stateisevil says:

    This bill has a pretty good chance of passage, especially with the help of a mass shooting or two. Cheetoh will sign it of course. I’m puzzled as to why so many people think it’s DOA. The ONLY gun bills that are DOA are pro gun bills.

  28. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

    Federal law prohibits a firearms data base at this time. However states will continue to use whatever powers they can to violate this. Louisiana did this years ago and when that hurricane hit, went door to door and confiscated guns at gunpoint. It resulted in killing a grandma in her home. Now NYS has proposed legislation demanding all permit renewals and gun purchasers undergo a 3 year search of all their social media accounts! They will have to turn over all passwords to Albany for an unrestricted search of everything on their accounts! And Cuntmo will probably sign it. There will be no restraints on what they use against you! And all of your friends and contacts! Another bill Cuntmo is expected to sign requires all firearm owners to purchase a $1 million dollar insurance policy. That will be impossible as he has threatened all insurers in NYS not to provide it and ran the NRA policy out. I’ve already checked and cannot find any insurer that will offer policy. I expect by April there will be more than a few million people turned into felons overnight because they will not comply!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Old Fur Trapper,

      Another bill … requires all firearm owners to purchase a $1 million dollar insurance policy. That will be impossible as [Gov. Cuomo] has threatened all insurers in NYS not to provide it and ran the NRA policy out. I’ve already checked and cannot find any insurer that will offer policy.

      That is a feature, not a bug!!!

  29. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I don’t see what the problem is I don’t plan on buying any firearms. At least as far as you are going to know.

    And I don’t plan on selling any either since all of my firearms were lost in that terrible boating accident last summer.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “….all of my firearms were lost in that terrible boating accident last summer.”

      Yes, and yours was the boat that recklessly crashed into mine, causing me to lose and entire firearms arsenal, and huge ammunition cache. And your insurance company is being unfairly obstinate about it.

  30. avatar Wood says:

    Is this a caption contest?

    “This is how my hand felt after writing 200 pages of grabber BS!”

  31. avatar james says:

    Criminals will ignore it, it will never get to the Oval Office and never have a DJT signature on it.

    Guess I need a “Gun Free Zone’ shirt and stickers front and back when I am out in public?

  32. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    We must commemorate the anniversary of a shooting perpetrated by someone who passed a background check by legislating more background checks to prevent similar shootings in the future.

    makes perfect sense (eyeroll)

  33. avatar American Patriot says:

    They should outlaw & make felons politicians that don’t keep their oath of office.

  34. Here is a list of Congress’s enumerated powers.

    The Congress shall have power

    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 power do universal background checks fall?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Under which power do universal background checks fall?”

      The authority is found in the first sentence quoted by Michael Ejercito: “…provide for the….general Welfare of the United States;”

      Courts are fine with that.

      1. avatar What part of ShallNOT BeINFRINGED is so difficult? says:

        Well, I’m not.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “provide for the….general Welfare of the United States;”

          “Courts are fine with that.”

          “Well, I’m not.”

          Constitutional amendment to remove the phrase?

        2. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Sam, you’re not the only one using sarcasm and/or wit in your posts, you know…

          Although there’s no question that you do it better than I.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, you’re not the only one using sarcasm and/or wit in your posts, you know…”

          Thought I was playing along. Looks like I misfired.

      2. Judges being dishonest.

        Who knew?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Judges being dishonest. Who knew?”

          In what sense?

          Constitution grants this power to the legislature. Courts agree. Where is the problem?

          The basis of the Constitution is the delegation (assignment of agency) from the States, to the central government. Note that the States, in the beginning, were superior in every way to the central government. Thus, the States, meeting in convention, decided to delegate unlimited power for “the general welfare” of the nation. Indeed, nowhere in the Constitution is there a listing of limits to “promote” the general welfare. There is, however, the rest of the constitution to consult.

          The first 10 ratified amendments to the Constitution are a listing of limits that one might consider to be limits on the otherwise unlimited power to foster, enhance, promote, engender, “the general welfare”. In our case, promoting “the general welfare” does not include controlling firearms in the States. At least that was the condition at the founding; States regulated, controlled, managed, the possession and handling of firearms (one cannot look back from 2019). However, two events put to rest the limiting of central government powers: Marbury v. Madison (where the SC declared supremacy in determining the meaning of the Constitution and all other laws); 14th Amendment. With the 14th Amendment (i.e. consent of the States), the central government, via the SC, was no longer the “agent” (delegatee) of the States, but the controlling political entity.

          All this created a total mess of the constitution and “the law”.

          With the 14th, the central government was granted power to enforce the limits of the constitution onto the states (note the shift from States, to “states”). Along with that legislative shift came the judicial power to determine if internal laws of the states were “constitutional”. In short, the SC became the ultimate power in the nation, overruling presidency, the national legislature, and state laws. This usurpation of power leaves us with the SC creating “compelling government interest” (promote the general welfare”, and levels of application (rational, balance-of-interests” intermediate, strict) of constitutional limits on the states and individuals.

          The transfer of power from “the people” to the SC is so pervasive that the national legislature dares not attempt to use its power to determine judicial jurisdiction. Should the Congress and the President sign into law any restrictions (even a constitutional amendment) to the power of the SC, the SC would likely declare such legislation/constitutional amendment to be “unconstitutional”; the mother of all constitutional crises. Which certainly would not “promote the general welfare”.

        2. Without the 14h, there would be no federal judicial remedy against states prohibiting peaceful possession of firearms, nor against states practicing racial segregation.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Without the 14h, there would be no federal judicial remedy against states prohibiting peaceful possession of firearms, nor against states practicing racial segregation.”

          Under the original intent of the constitution, those matters were to be left entirely to the States, the sovereign, superior, power delegating States. The central government was never meant to be the “fixer” of all problems. The founders were fully capable of creating and ratifying a constitution that placed the States under the total control of the central government; they chose differently.

          Prior to 1860, a number of States tried to use congressional legislation to force other States to comply with laws not authorized by the Constitution (i.e. amending the constitution via simple legislation). The coercing States knew full well they could not get a constitutional amendment ratified outlawing/banning slavery/slave owning. The result was a devastating second civil war. Even then, the States wanting to outlaw slavery (there were four slave States that remained in the union, yet they were not subject to either legislation or constitutional amendment removing slavery) could not get a constitutional amendment ratified until three years after the war ended. You would have thought that after the carnage, all the states would ratify the 14th, immediately.

          In the end, the 14th did more than eliminate slavery. It completely subverted the relationship between states (note the little “s”) and the central government. As the saying goes, prior to the civil war, the term “the United States are” was converted to “the United States is”. Vast difference in meaning.

          So, the 14th ended slavery, but thrust the central government into every nook and cranny of individual life. Therefore, anyone viewing the 14th amendment victory over slavery must be content with the victory of the central government in every other aspect of life. After the 14th, what was the purpose of retaining any concept of “states”? Did the cure for slavery serve to kill the patient?

  35. avatar bud says:

    Be advised, UBC has no purpose other than to stop all private circulation of arms and direct transfers through licensee businesses. If/when that happens, FFL/SOT holders have no ability to recourse. FFLs are totally powerless against ATF arbitrary opinions by letter, audit, dictate. This is how they will get your guns. The day before UBC goes through, is the last day that America will be America, in the slightest. After that, welcome to the bad days.

  36. avatar Kap says:

    Democrats cannot do any thing constructive, but boy can they dismantle the US of A! may the bird of paradise Shit on their lives, families and friends, preferably by seagulls.

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