House Passes HR 8, Bill That Would Outlaw Private Gun Sales

Nancy pelosi gun control background checks HB 8

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives passed what they’re optimistically calling a universal background check bill today. But there’s much more to HR 8 than just mandated FFL transfers.

The bill would also ban handgun sales to adults under 21 years old, allow for unlimited transfer fees, and criminalize handing a firearm to another person while shooting outside a designated range.

The bill now goes on to the Republican-controlled Senate where it has a much tougher road ahead. President Trump has vowed to veto it should it ever make it to his desk.

Here’s the full AP story:

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic-controlled House on Wednesday approved a measure requiring federal background checks for all firearms sales and transfers, the first major gun control legislation considered by Congress in nearly 25 years.

Democrats called the 240-190 vote a major step to end the gun lobby’s grip on Washington and begin to address an epidemic of gun violence that kills thousands of Americans every year, including 17 people shot and killed at a Florida high school last year.

The bill is the first of two the House is voting on this week as Democrats move to tighten gun laws following eight years of Republican control. The other bill would extend the review period for background checks from three to 10 days.

Both bills face dim prospects in the Republican-controlled Senate and veto threats from President Donald Trump, who said they would impose unreasonable requirements on gun owners.

Just eight Republicans joined 232 Democrats to support the bill, while only two Democrats voted against it.

The White House said in a veto message that the background-checks bill could block someone from borrowing a firearm for self-defense or allowing a neighbor to take care of a gun while traveling.

Democrats called those arguments misleading and said gun owners have a responsibility to ensure firearms are properly handled. The bill includes exceptions allowing temporary transfers to prevent imminent harm or for use at a target range.

The long-delayed bill would merely close loopholes to ensure that background checks are extended to private and online sales that often go undetected, Democrats said.

“People who are felons or are dangerously mentally ill shouldn’t have guns,” regardless of whether they buy them from a federally licensed dealer or their next-door neighbor, said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., a key sponsor who has pushed for expanded background checks since the 2012 killing of 20 elementary school students in Newtown, Connecticut.

“For six-and-a-half years, we had no cooperation from the past majority” in the House, Thompson said. “We couldn’t get a hearing on the bill. We couldn’t get a vote. Today, we’re here to tell you it’s a new day. With this (Democratic) majority, we have made a commitment to address the issue of gun violence.”

While Republicans mostly opposed the bill, the GOP scored a procedural victory when the House accepted a Republican amendment requiring that gun sellers notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an illegal immigrant tries to buy a gun. Twenty-six Democrats joined with Republicans to support the amendment, offered by Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi downplayed the GOP proposal, saying, “We won a big victory — get the message.”

Pelosi, D-Calif., called the House vote “historic” and hailed the bill as “a long-overdue, commonsense action to end the epidemic of gun violence in America.”

To demonstrate her support for the bill, Pelosi wore an orange dress while other Democrats wore orange ties or scarves, the color used by the movement against gun violence.

Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said she hopes the symbolism will soon become obsolete.

“I long for the day when orange scarves are a fashion statement, not a cry for help,” said Dean, who was wearing a bright orange scarf.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., who was gravely wounded in a 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice, said stricter background checks would not have prevented his shooting or other tragedies.

“What it would do is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens,” Scalise said. “If you go hunting with a friend and your friend wants to borrow your rifle, you better bring your attorney with you because depending on what you do with that gun you may be a felon if you loan it to him.”

Democrats said the bill includes exceptions allowing temporary transfers for anyone who feels threatened by a domestic partner or other person. The bill also allows a gun owner to loan their weapon and for use at a target range.

“There is no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them by circumventing the background check process,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The background checks bill would “close this dangerous loophole and save lives,” Nadler said.

Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, said the bill “foolishly presumes criminals who flout existing laws will suddenly submit themselves to background checks.”

Democrats and other bill supporters are “delusional” if they think “a criminal trading cocaine to another criminal for a firearm will reconsider due to” the background checks bill, he said.

But Kris Brown, president of Brady, a gun control group formerly known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the bill will save lives.

Brown called the House vote “a monumental step forward for gun violence prevention in our country” and hailed Thompson and other lawmakers who pushed for the measure.

“On to the Senate!” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Dead bill is dead. They don’t have the votes to override a veto.

    1. avatar binder says:

      If there was a chance that it would actually become law, it would never had gotten a vote. They know the 2020 election would be a bloodbath.

      But pass it in the house and then they get to cry at the elections about how the Republicans blocked the effort. That’s how you get out your side of the vote.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        In the not-distant-future they will occupy the WH and have the political ‘juice’ to drop it on a ‘Progressive’ president’s desk to be signed, you realize.

        Until that time, I’m hoping to hear the magic words of ‘Strict Scrutiny’ from SCOTUS…

        1. avatar Howard Hines says:

          You have “pipe” (as in peace pipe) dreams, even though you might not be related to Senator Warren. The only way we could have this is if we all get united with guns and have a revolution – called a civil war, and turn this country into a modern up-to-date great socialist democracy. For this could be the only way we will ever have a chicken in every pot everyday for everybody. Forget Jesus’ words, “For the poor you will always have with you.” (Was Jesus speaking in relativistic terms?) Only with the great upheaval such as the one in 1917 can we be successful, Pelosi, Cortez, et al., notwithstanding. Listen to them..Their voices are muted perhaps, but they are calling us to dreams unimaginable. After the proletariat does its things, and a modicum of socialist order has been instituted, there will be the literal downthrow and destruction of the Washington Monument, and in its place a great and grand mausoleum, EQUAL TO LENIN’S IN MOSCOW, constructed in its place to enshrine the body of our glorious deceased (at that time) founder of our USSA (United Socialist States of America!). GLORY! HONOR! PEACE! PROSPERITY FOR ALL, Washed and unwashed, workers and non-workers who were willing to give their everything, their all, their blood for the establishment of the greatest democracy ever known to man! Not since the tower of Babel will there have been such a grand undertaking. (sic!)

    2. avatar arc says:

      Yep. It will die in the senate and Trump will veto.

      1. avatar Howard Hines says:

        The dead man to be laid to rest in that mausoleum on the Washington Mall which will rival Lenin’s in Moscow, will be that of the founder of our great Democratic Socialist Democracy, the United Socialist States of America, President Berney Sanders. All Glory to A New and Almighty Socialist State! Be ready to hit the streets for it, for the civil war is a coming!

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      No veto necessary. It’s not even going to get a committee hearing, much less get a floor vote. It’ll die the same way SHARE/HPA died.

    4. avatar k says:

      the 1968 gun control act..states convicted felons, those who have been in mental health centers, handgun under age 21…long guns under 18,,with some exceptions,,,etc etc etc…..how many more ways does a dead horse have to be beated? also..IF , according to the U.S. supreme court, recently,,that keeping(owning) and bearing *carry) firearms is a individual RIGHT..then, all this is moot,,you can not place these kinds of retrictions as this new act does, on a RIGHT….repeal most of the gun control laws on the books now as redundant..same shit,,different way of saying it…like saying hello..hi, hey, DUDE, YO,,,see what i mean…

      1. avatar Ronald Crafton says:

        The worthless demoncraps will beat this horse until they have all of our guns and half of us are dead, or we manage to kill every last one of them in the process. They are evil POS that really need to be exterminated if we hope to ever have a decent country again. The problem is that, like cock roaches, they keep increasing in numbers by poisoning minds so that it will not happen. We are stuck with them for all time.

        1. avatar Howard M Hines says:

          The non-workers have a movement other than a bowel movement and it is this: Dismember every last freaking conservative in a civil war, overthrow this government, replace it with a greater than ever Socialist Empire, putting even Joe Stalin to shame, but, again, ONLY IN AMERICA. The Washington Monument will be destroyed, a grand mausoleum on the mall in its place to entomb and enshrine the founder of it all, the dead President Berney Sanders. His replacement will have been a pretty little thing from New York by way of Puerto Rico, the eminent Ms. Occasio-Cortez. This is what I saw in the face of congress “lady” Pelosi.

      2. avatar Dale Gerschutz says:

        Yes, the 1968 act does say that, but, the Russian constitution also stated that citizens could keep weapons. So did the Czech constitution until they passed a law that stated, for our children’s safety, guns will be kept in armories. You’ll be able to come and get yours when wanted. But when the Russians invaded and they went to the armories to get their guns, the people found that all the armories were closed. The words in their laws, and now today, in our laws, mean nothing to these double crossing politicians.

    5. avatar John says:

      Maybe it is time to use the Second Amendment law as to what it was meant to be for. To protect us, the citizens, from the government.

  2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    In the past, the gun control issue got them beat at the polls and it will again. idiots never learn.

    1. avatar B7 says:

      Data says no. 2A issues used to be only somewhat partisan. So they USED to be a “third rail.” But for 40 years there have been moving toward partisan and in any political indexing, they are now are a benefit to any but a handful of Democrat candidates.

      If you look at federal and statehouse legislature votes on gun control 25 years ago they were about 75:25 party aligned. Now they run over 95:05 (like this vote which was more like 97:3).

      People focusing on 5 (out of 435) gop members of Congress In districts that have gone Democrat or are purple districts who crossed — are missing forest for the trees.

      Have you seen which senate seats are up in 2020 and how those states are trending? There will with a virtual certainty be a Democratic senate elected. If we don’t hold the White House there will be massive gun control that will make this measure seem trivial.

      1. avatar That One Guy says:

        https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/

        No matter how you shake this map, it predicts at least 19 of 34 seats go to the GOP. the GOP starts with 31, giving the party no fewer than 50. Barring some new thing coming to the fore, there is almost no chance Trump/Pence doesn’t win, putting Pence as the tiebreaker.

        The odds of Dems taking the WH or the senate are fairly long at this point…and every anti-american thing they do makes those odds get longer.

        1. avatar Derringer Dave says:

          “there is almost no chance Trump/Pence doesn’t win” in 2020?
          I laughed so hard when I saw that.
          Is it possible to win with only 35%-40% approval ratings, and 55% of Americans who strongly disapprove?
          Usually, to win an election, you need 50% of the vote.
          Granted, in 2016, Trump “won” with only 46% of the votes cast, but that was a highly unusual election, with two strong third-party candidates, with Russia’s finger on the scales, with Russia hacking the voting machines, with Russia colluding with Paul Manafor (Trump’s campaign manager), with Facebook and Twitter taking payments in rubles (yes, Facebook took payments in Russian rubles and claimed, with a straight face, that they didn’t know the buyers were Russian!) to place ads, with Russian trolls pretending to be Americans on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc., with Russian trolls putting fake stories out everywhere, with the FBI director Comey putting his thumb on the scale for Trump by announcing two weeks before the election that he was reopening the investigation into the Democratic candidate, with Trump paying illegal hush money weeks before the election to two women to stop them from coming forward with the truth about him, with Russia hacking the voting rolls of multiple states, with Russia being handed polling data from the Trump campaign by Paul Manafort (Trump’s campaign manager) so that Russia could target voters down to the most minute detail, with Julian Assange and Wikileaks acting as a conduit for emails hacked by Russia at the direction of Donald Trump (“Russia, if you’re listening,” Trump ordered his foreign pals on live national TV), etc. etc.

          That was in 2016, and Trump still lost the popular vote by three MILLION votes, even with all that help from James Comey, Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Russia, etc., and even with the illegal hush money!
          And sure, he won the electoral college, but only thanks to 80,000 votes in only three states, which were states targeted by Russia because of polling data given to them by Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

          In order to win in 2020, now that he has only 35% support (or on his best days, 40%), there would have to be even more Russian interference than in the last election, even more illegal hush money than the last election, even more Russian hacking, even more FBI directors putting their thumb on the scale for Trump like Comey did in October 2016.

          But as Stalin used to say, it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the vote, and with Republicans in charge of the voting process, and allowing their Russian pals helping them, anything is possible.
          Trump just gutted the office of Homeland Security that was supposed to prevent foreign hacking of the vote in 2020, so obviously he knows that he can only “win” by cheating, by letting Putin hack the vote. Again.

        2. avatar B7 says:

          “Barring some new thing coming to the fore, there is almost no chance Trump/Pence doesn’t win…”

          That is dubious at best. The fundraising alone is trending profoundly differently than 2016. and money matters. The trend on 2018 midterms do not bode well either. President Trump is very unlikely to win, it is not just his negative approval numbers, it is how solid his negatives are.

          On the senate take a look:
          https://cookpolitical.com/user/login?destination=/analysis/senate/senate-charts/2020-senate-glance
          Twice as many incumbent Republicans up for 2020 are in toss up category, than incumbent Democrat senators. There are six GOP senators at serious risk, two almost certain to lose.

        3. avatar B7 says:

          @ Derringer Dave. “That was in 2016, and Trump still lost the popular vote ”

          Conservatives+libertarians won the popular vote over Democrats+Greens. The studies show that about 85% of libertarians vote GOP when no Libertarian is on the ballot and about 80% of Green will go Democrat.

          As far as the rest of your bizarre rant, the mud slinging against Trump comes to what? The Clinton’s took millions from China including when Hillary Sec State. Trump is ultimately getting hung up on what? paying someone he slept with to keep quite? The Clinton got a jobs for a number of people bill Clinton harassed or assaulted.

          Why not stick to sober basic trends and election cycles instead of bizarre conspiracy theories that have about as much credibility long run as Kamila Harris’ bestie — Jessi Smollett.

          We know Trump’s problem: it is the media and Washington is against him -=- and they have been rigging elections. Ironically Trump’s election was probably the cleanest ever. Tens of millions come into the US political process every cycle through DNC and RNC dark money ops . The data show the Russians help who ever they think is LOSING to simply crank division.

  3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    It would be refreshing if we had an honest supreme court that would rule that when the second amendment states shall not be infringed it means that it’s hands off and all gun control laws passed were un constitutional , null and void.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      What we need is a constitutional amendment stating that if a politician votes yes on a law which is eventually overturned as unconstitutional, they are to be immediately removed from office and barred from ever holding office again.

      If politicians can not respect the constitution they should not be in office.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Oh, that would be a godsend!

        1. avatar Derringer Dave says:

          Yes, that would be a godsend! Think how many of Trump’s executive orders were already ruled Unconstitutional. If he were removed from office every time SCOTUS ruled against him, we’d have a real President by now instead of a Russian agent.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        That’s a good idea. Politicians ought to be held accountable for passing laws that violate the constitution. That would have rid us of John McCain. Instead the damned Rhinos tried to shove him down our throats as President.

      3. avatar Sarcasm says:

        Actually it might be MORE effective to not remove/ban them from holding public office, but divide the legal costs (court costs, legal fees on both sides – including ‘market value’ for the time of any public employees or experts, plus any awards, and maybe some other stuff I haven’t thought of) among all politicians who voted for the law.

    2. avatar Gman says:

      This is not a 2nd Amendment issue. Congress has not been given the authority to regulate intrastate private commerce. All signatories to this bill and all who voted for it should be removed from service for failing to honor their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

  4. avatar RA-15 says:

    Imbiciles of the highest order.

  5. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    So which Republicant’s voted for this one?
    Nothing posted at https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8
    Can’t wait to primary them

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I think only 5 did. The vote was almost 100% along party lines. This bill has no chance in hell of becoming law.

      1. avatar Keyword Spam says:

        This time. They’ll try again in 2021, after the progressives take the senate and the white house.

        1. avatar Jean-Claude says:

          Don’t call them “Progressives”. They’re LEFTISTS. The word “Progressive” was usurped by the Leftists to make them sound like their goals are to “progress” society in a positive way.

          They’re LEFTISTS. They’re SOCIALISTS. Some of them are COMMUNISTS.

        2. avatar HP says:

          People can just move to a free state!

        3. avatar B7 says:

          What do free states have to do with federal law?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          If the leftists manage that, it’s civil war time.

        5. avatar B7 says:

          No. The word liberal was usurped by leftists. The word progressive in a political sense has ALWAYs refered to statists. 100 years ago progressives were for federal alcohol prohibition, government determined eugenics, gun control, the initiation of the drug wars and huge ingress of central government. On local law and to reduce personal liberty, choice and responsibility

        6. avatar HP says:

          @B7, that was sarcasm. I’m mocking the short-sighted idiots who continually and condescendingly claim that moving (running) from bad guns laws is the best option.

    2. avatar KenW says:

      According to my congresscritter Vermin Buchanan who voted for it 7 other Republicans crossed over to the other side with him.
      Per the letter I received from him
      >>>>>
      Moments ago, with my support, the U.S. House passed legislation expanding background checks for gun purchases.

      Our laws cannot be effective if there are gaping loopholes that allow criminals and deranged individuals to purchase firearms over the Internet or at gun shows without background checks.

      The bill I voted for today, H.R. 8, will close these loopholes.

      I was one of 8 Republicans to support the bill.

      The bill passed the House by a vote of 240 to 190 and is now on its way to the U.S. Senate for consideration. It provides several common-sense exemptions, allowing the transfer of guns between close family members, law enforcement and hunters.

      Currently, federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. Under H.R. 8, non-gun dealers who sell firearms would be required to have a background check conducted by a licensed dealer before selling the gun.

      As you may recall, I was one of the first members of Congress to call for banning bump stocks after the device, which effectively turns a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic weapon, was used in the deadly Las Vegas shooting in 2017. I also supported the Stop School Violence Act and the Fix NICS Act to improve the national database of people who are adjudicated mentally ill or otherwise disqualified from buying guns.

      Please let me know if you support or oppose my position on H.R. 8. <<<<

      I wasted time sending him a note ….

      1. avatar bob says:

        Textbook brainwashed regurgitated crap.

        Spoken like a true lazy person who doesn’t bother to do any research on their own but takes the word of mouth of strangers as the truth.

    3. avatar Sian says:

      Buchanan, Diaz-Balart, Fitzpatrick, Hurd, King, Mast, Smith, Upton.

      Primary time.

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        I KNEW that Peter King & Brian Mast were going to be in that camp. I’m surprised about Buchanan did, he’s generally pretty conservative.

  6. avatar MB says:

    Trump will veto, they don’t have 2/3 margin in either House or Senate to over-ride veto. Don’t get you shorts in a bunch. Just start fighting to get the traitors behind these bills removed from office. Support your local gun stores, support whatever gun rights group you chose, or all of them. Buy plenty of ammo in case they want to remove Trump, which we can’t allow a coup d’etat. The 3% must rise up as happened in 1776 to protect the Republic.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Buy plenty of ammo in case they want to remove Trump, which we can’t allow a coup d’etat.”

      For Ron Paul, hell yeah! For Trump, not on your life.

      1. avatar B7 says:

        Is all of your life a fantasy world? Ron Paul will not be president in 2021, Trump or the winner of the Democrat primary will be. If it is the winner of the Democrat primary this and 50 much worse gun control measures will be law.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          That wasn’t the point. The point was that Trump isn’t the guy I would fight for.

          You either knew that and are just being a douche or you’re about as sharp as a brick.

      2. avatar Overshoe says:

        This is the kind of comment that demonstrates to me that those of us in the 2A community need to get on the same page. We live in a constiutional republic ruled by the rule of law. The overthrow of any duely elected president would cause the collapse of the republic. The American left has come totally unhinged.. the don’t want to turn this into Sweden, the truly want a dystopian hybrid of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The 2nd ammendment was th Founders doomsday clause to protect the citizenry from tyranny. The 2nd protects the rest. Think about the alternative.

      3. avatar JR says:

        So what you are saying is you would rather have a Demon-Rat in office over Trump who is fighting for WE THE PEOPLE! Ron Paul is washed up in the political arena! But hey if you don’t want your Rights why don’t you move to Venezuela?

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “The 3% must rise up as happened in 1776 to protect the Republic.”

      http://breedshill.org/The_Breeds_Hill_institute/The_One_Third_Myth.html

  7. avatar J says:

    They are just starting. They have more proposed bills planned, but the worst will be the firearm bans. We can only hope that Trump can be re-elected in 2020.

    1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      The next time Democrats get back into power they are going to completely open the borders like never before and pass gun bills left and right. If we want to keep any part of the Constitution we may have to actually fight for it.

  8. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

    REALLY! I just checked with “Congress.gov”, and H.R. 8 is STILL sitting on the House Floor being Reviewed by the Committee of Judiciary. NO Vote has been made yet by the House…

    1. avatar clst1 says:

      3:45:48 P.M.
      H.R. 8
      On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 240 – 190 (Roll no. 99).
      3:45:51 P.M.
      H.R. 8
      Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  9. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Why, for the love of God, not make crimes involving firearms offenses have severe punishment as a requirement? Instead the dems want to release criminals from prison to make room for more holes in the cemetary…

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      As I recall, Donald Trump made the “Get Out Jail” proposal! Not the DEM’s…

      1. avatar B7 says:

        Nonsense post. Trump proposal was not for gun crime but low level drug crimes. On actual gun crimes, Democrat jurisdictions and Democrat prosecutors and judges consistently much more often fail to prosecute, plea and/or paper down at higher rates, or when sentencing give lower sentences for actual gun crimes.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          @ B7

          And getting out of Jail Early by Donald Trump has a different meaning, than getting of Jail Early by the Dem’s…

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      While places like Chicago have, on the books at least, severe punishment for crimes committed with guns, that’s not the truth.

      “When it comes to prosecuting crimes committed with firearms, Chicago ranked eighty out of eighty-seven regions in 2011. Los Angeles ranked eighty-third, and San Francisco ranked dead last at eighty-seven – the lowest prosecution rate for gun-related crimes (Syracuse University, 2011). As of June 2015, Syracuse University noted there were only forty-eight weapons convictions in the Northern District of Illinois which includes both Chicago and Rockford, Illinois (Ballotpedia, 2014). Gun control seems to be Chicago’s focus.”

      One question is where would convicted criminals be housed?

      “One of the problems in Chicago is that there is a lack of prison housing. Even if convicted of a gun-related crime, there just isn’t enough room to house the current 10,000 inmates. As a result, felons get reduced sentences and are back out on the streets to re-offend the public again (Reynolds, 2013).”

      The use of plea deals avoids the cost and resources that trials would consume. Then there are outright dismissial of charges.

      “From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.”

      https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/
      http://www.netadvisor.org/2015/08/11/murder-in-chicago-politicians-tough-on-guns-weak-on-criminal-prosecution/#.WAzmOdxHaf0

    3. avatar paul says:

      Calif took off all gun enhancement on felonies. They just would use it for a plea deal, but would put non violent felony offenders on the 3 strikes law.

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      There shouldn’t be any extra punishment for involvement with a firearm beyond determination of amount of force applied or implied. The crime has it’s own severity. Allowing government to add punishment just because the presence of a firearm has shown to be extremely vulnerable to abuses.

    5. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Anyone who proposes gun control should be asked about 10/20/30. Period. Make them stand up for their “anti gun violence” stance.

  10. avatar Billydoug says:

    Nancy she done got a Purdy mouf

    1. avatar possum says:

      From the looks of that picture it appears she’s discovered her battery operated will run on 220

  11. avatar John brown says:

    The enemy is not stupid. They passed this so they can have it on the back burner for the next national tragedy. Dont underestimate them.

  12. avatar Mark N. says:

    Vox (it shos up on my iPhone) published an article quoting multiple anti-gun researchers and a number of studies that establish that UBCs will NOT have an appreciable effect on “gun violence.” That did not stop the author from opining that “maybe” these laws do have an effect, it just gets lost int he noise. The best (worst) quote he got was from David Webster at Johns Hopkins who said that UBCs are “an important first step,” the “foundation” for further arms restrictions. Also suggested was that the only effective gun control law is a LICENSING AND GUN REGISTRATION SCHEME. No attempt was made to explain how a requirement to obtain a gun license or permit to buy a gun comports with the Second Amendment, but then, we wouldn’t expect them to rain on their own parade…

    1. avatar B7 says:

      Please do not reference David Webster as merely at “Johns Hopkins” without noting he is from $300 million dollar Michael Bloomberg endowed school, and fully funded by Michael Bloomberg gun violent study program at that Bloomberg front

  13. avatar John says:

    Only slaves ask permission to exercise their rights and background checks violate the 5th amendment.

  14. avatar barnbwt says:

    This bill does a whole lot more than UBCs; it effectively outlaws unlicensed gunsmithing. No more builds, and arguably, no more home gunsmithing of firearms you already own.

    We unwisely believe there won’t be any support for this type of measure from groups like FFLs, the NRA, or the NSSF. Like carry-licensing, all stand to make money as mandatory ‘middle men’ if this type of law is passed. Call me jaded, but the NRA & NSSF especially have always been quite well aware of who butters their bread, and donations are sharply down after their recent betrayals on bump stocks & red flag laws.

    1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

      Exactly which Red Flag law did NRA support and in what state? They were at our North Dakota state Capital in Bismarck a few weeks ago lobbying against a Red flag law that was soundly defeated. Spare me the link to Chris Cox’s video, that’s called playing politics, show me where the NRA actually got behind a Red Flag law. Bumpstocks? Pfft! we got way bigger fish to fry than trying to convince politicians, judges and the public that banning them is somehow an infringement on our right to keep and bear firearms. And yes, unfortunately swaying public opinion is a big part of defending our civil rights from infringement in modern day America.

    2. avatar B7 says:

      ,i>Call me jaded, but the NRA & NSSF especially have always been quite well aware of who butters their bread, and donations are sharply down after their recent betrayals on bump stocks & red flag laws.

      ALL the data show rank and file NRA member donations ARE UP and it is only corporate donations that are down — because Corporations think NRA is being too hard line in defense of 2A. But do keep up the lies.

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Just turn in your guns and the government will give you “free stuff”. They do it in Washington state , California, Illinois, New Jersey, excetera excetera.

  16. avatar Tom Forrest says:

    In the unlikely event that this becomes law, there is no way that it could be implemented, either legally or practically, as the Federal Government has no authority to interfere with private transactions within a given state…especially if that transaction is perfectly legal in that state.

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      If that were true, then every states also has the Legal Right to Print it’s own Currency, regardless of what the Federal Government says…

      1. avatar Tom Forrest says:

        States CAN print their own money…it just won’t be recognized outside of that state.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Not so. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … coin Money;

    2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      Tom, the SCOTUS rulings on Gibbons v. Ogden & Wikard v. Filburn actually says that the Federal Government can regulate those transactions.

      1. avatar Tom Forrest says:

        Monopolies on navigation and (to a lesser extent) Depression-era food production were demonstrated to be matters of interstate commerce. I think you’ll have a much harder time making the same case about Elmer selling an old shotgun to his neighbor.

  17. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

    Here is a list of the Turncoat RINO’s who voted against the 2A (and the honorable Democrat from Maine who voted for your 2A rights).

    Statistically Notable Votes
    Vote Party Representative District
    Yea R Buchanan, Vern FL 16th
    Yea R Mast, Brian FL 18th
    Yea R Diaz-Balart, Mario FL 25th
    Vote Party Representative District
    Nay D Golden, Jared ME 2nd
    Yea R Upton, Fred MI 6th
    Yea R Smith, Chris NJ 4th
    Vote Party Representative District
    Yea R King, Pete NY 2nd
    Yea R Fitzpatrick, Brian PA 1st
    Yea R Hurd, Will TX 23rd

    1. avatar B7 says:

      So with >450 congress members,, that is a 98% correlation by party, just about the most partisan vote imaginable. Looks like 100 “RINOS” voted in favor of the 2A on this as well meaning it is not about “RINOS” but about half a dozen Republicans who are in districts going left.

  18. avatar Made in America says:

    Why to go Dems.

  19. avatar 24and7 says:

    WE WILL NOT COMPLY ANYWAY!! TOTALLY UNENFORCEABLE..YOU WILL NEVER STOP PRIVATE SALES..

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Yep you better veto this Donny…no re-election if you don’t. After today’s lie er laugh fest in Congress he needs our gunvote. Interesting times we live in!😄😊😏

  21. avatar M1Lou says:

    This is why people need to show up to vote, every time. Republicans need to actually campaign, every single time. This is what happens when people dont. Luckily we still have the Senate and the Presidency so it most likely won’t pass, but what happens in 2 years? The SCOTUS can’t be counted on to protect us.

  22. avatar Aaron says:

    i’ve never heard an explanation from democrats on how these measures would actually stop “gun violence”. especially since many existing gun laws aren’t even enforced.

    the myriad gun control laws are fertile fields for selective prosecution, which is a powerful tool for vindictive authoritarians to harm people they wish to silence or punish. this is just another hobnail in the boot orwell warned us about.

    if democrats really cared about stopping murder, they could quite easily outlaw abortion. 50 times more Americans are murdered inside the womb than outside the womb every year. but they don’t care, because their real goal is control, not saving lives.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Anti-abortion laws are Prohibition laws, which do not work. Humans will still get pregnant when they do not want to, or the pregnancy will go terribly badly, all sorts of things. And we will still have countless abortions, just right back to the illegal kind. Mostly hidden, concealed, an illusion of success. Prohibition never works.

      Want to really do something about stopping abortion? Fund the crap out of birth control, babies and mothers and adoption and every angle we can come up with tp prevent pregnancy in the first place and support it when that fails.

      That’s what works.

      1. avatar Aaron says:

        making murder illegal is akin to prohibition?

        that’s quite a leap of logic.

        please explain when do developing humans get human rights? pro-abortionists never have an answer for that. some of them even want to be able to “abort” pregnancies after delivery.

        the real pro-abortionist definition of when do developing humans get human rights is “when itks convenient for us to grant them human rights.” you all are just too dishonest to say it.

  23. avatar Samuel Whittemore says:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h99

    Remember this vote and call them out and spread the word!

    If ur not organizing in your local area and blasting out pro freedom and pro gun education on a handful of Social Media Platforms ur the problem! I got a bunch of old farts to use IG,TWit,FB and now they love it.

    It does not matter what the Senate or trump will do!

    This new group of young people are brainwashed and voting in crazy democrats!

    One day AOC or some other crazy will be potus and have all 3 branches of government! BOOM GONE!

    We live in a push button world were people are so fing lazy they will not send 1 email to their rep!

    Yeah and u 3per and Shallnot will just sit back or be declared a crazy and get swatted!

    They will do this bill by bill slowly not door to door and scare the hell out of people to comply!

  24. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Ya… dumb asses, catch me if you can… all their doing is creating criminals out of law abiding citizens… could be a tragic loss of life because of Democrats…

  25. avatar strych9 says:

    Meh. More political posturing. If something else “big” happens they can try to ram it through, fail and blame the other side. If nothing “big” happens shortly, when it eventually does, they’ll say “We tried but the other guys stopped us and this is why it happened” regardless of what happens or how the means to do it were acquired.

  26. avatar Slow Joe Crow says:

    Lindsay Graham already declared this and HR 1112 DOA in the Senate Judiciary committee so Trump won’t have to veto it. Also Oregon went as expected, with Walden a firm no.

  27. avatar b says:

    You know there are things the left does that although I don’t necessarily agree, I don’t really get too wound up about, to each their own, etc. Crap like this honest to god makes me fighting mad. Not like fight in court either. One day they are going to ram something big through and wake up a pissed off group of people all at once.

  28. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    Not a snowballs chance in hell Trump will sign this if it gets to him. If we are serious about the 2nd amendment and keeping it as intended, it needs to become a boilerplate standard for supporting any Repub candidate. I can’t see ever voting Dem so that’s off the table for me. Before I vote for any politician I need to know their stance on this one issue, it’s that important. In fact I’m looking for some roll back on the more onerous laws here in the peoples republic of NJ. I know, I’m a dreamer.

    1. avatar Zoldone says:

      Geez, why do you have so much faith in Trump?

      He banned bump stocks by executive order, has said in the past we should strengthen background checks, appears to be okay with raising the age limit for purchases to 21, suggested that law enforcement should be able to take guns away from people they think are safety risks without going through the courts, has gone on record saying people shouldn’t make their own guns and even stated those on the no fly list should be barred from buying guns. His record speaks for itself. Even back in 2000 he was in favor of banning assault rifles and longer waiting periods. I’m also sure there is more I’m forgetting or not able to find right now. (What he does say in favor of 2A is simply to appease and placate his base because he likes the attention.)

      Hell, in many ways Trump has done more for gun control then Obama. At the very least our gun rights were expanded under Obama, yes I know it’s hard to believe but it’s fact. (Granted if the Rs weren’t in control of the legislative branch, then I’d probably be singing a very different tune. We do know Obama sure tried his hardest to get gun control passed through and wasn’t successful.)

      If you don’t believe me Google every single one of those statements. I’m not making this stuff. Trump is no ally to pro gun or pro 2A . (His emergency declaration for the wall has just setup precedence for the next anti 2A president to use to ban all firearms or set “reasonable common sense” gun control to combat the “deadly health crises of gun violence”. Or frankly any president to legislate anything by presidential fiat.)

  29. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    The House Dimwits can do what they want to. It just makes them look even more foolish and stupid.
    But
    I want the name of every Republican who votes with them known and screamed loudly.
    Each and every one of those RHINOs needs to be removed ASAP.
    The more they show what maybe 3% of the voting people want. The more idiotic the Dimwits stand out being. Worse they will look in 2020. So make alot more stupid bills Libitards. Makes you all look great to the folks out there that count.

  30. avatar possum says:

    They can pass laws until their blue in the face, criminals don’t care about laws. All this is going to do is make criminals out if a bunch of good being’s I hate to give the Feds a tip, but I will sell a gum or give a gum to anyone I so chose to. Shall Not Be Infringed.. Are the legislators that ignorant that they think a law will prevent a crime, it’s like saying a seatbelt will prevent an accident. It’s an after the fact, just more time behind and making more criminals. Power Play

  31. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Perhaps it would be more beneficial to Freedom and Liberty of the nation to rather ban Marxist Leftards,instead.

  32. avatar J says:

    I watched some of the Cohen testimony tonight. Looks pretty damaging if 1/3 of what Cohen says is true about Trump. I just hope Pence has been out of the loop on these things to save us from Nancy Pelosi becoming President and jeopardizing everything we have invested in Trump as a pro-2A community.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      If a convicted liar wasn’t saying it then it would have some weight. But even then, it’s not illegal to pay your girlfriend to shut up. Men do it every day.

    2. avatar B7 says:

      Looks pretty damaging if 1/3 of what Cohen says is true about Trump.

      If 10% of what people who hated Obama said was true Obama would be in prison.
      People who are not Democrats get the context of this being a show trial event where none of the claims are true, but about slinging enough mud and the media lying to abet the Democrats.

      Look at he media coverage of the two summits with Kim so far. When the news, potential or simple precedence is good it is “US-N.Korea summit”, removing credit to Trump, when the news is bad it is “Trump-Kim” summit, blaming him.

    3. avatar Zoldone says:

      “everything we have invested in Trump as a pro-2A community.”

      Uhm? Hate to break it to you but Trump isn’t pro 2A. Hope you didn’t invest too much…

  33. avatar Julio says:

    So…I feel threatened by Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, and their DemonCrap majority along with the RINO-Swine assisting this gun/people control issue. Am I covered? Cause, you know…it’s all about tha feelz these days.

  34. avatar GS650G says:

    “The bill includes exceptions allowing temporary transfers to prevent imminent harm or for use at a target range.”

    And that little exception would be gone in the future. They want to make it the law that you would need a roster of guns on you your authorized to touch, registered with the government in their massive databases.
    How else are they going to round up guns under the threat of going to jail?

  35. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Lines are formed. There will be no middleground from here on. You will have to pick D or R and if you pick R you will be on a list for a 4am no knock visit. If this sounds like “tinfoil hat” stuff, remember this;

    Hillary walks free for actual felonies while Trump is under investigation for nothing.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      The left wants to eliminate the electoral college, stack the supreme court with more justices (provided a Marxist nominates them), eliminating the filibuster for all bills and granting statehood to DC and PR.
      Basically they want a 51 percent rule for everything. They would consider a national referendum as well but that might backfire since it only works in states populated by other leftists.

      Just imagine what that would be like.

      1. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

        “Just imagine what that would be like.”

        USSR circa 1950? We know what THEY want, Marxism Now, Marxism Forever.

        The real question is how long before THEY get it? Because THEY have made it clear exactly where THEY stand. THEY will not back down, compromise or discuss it anymore. THEY demand total submission, and THEY have the police state apparatus on THEIR side.

        THEY own the media, entertainment, and the entire DC deep state bureaucracy. Seems like THEY are more committed to THEIR agenda than US.

      2. avatar Zoldone says:

        “The left wants to eliminate the electoral college”

        I thought that’s what the right, Rs and conservatives were saying in 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996 and especially in 2008 and 2012?

        But now the electoral college is suddenly okay?

    2. avatar Zoldone says:

      “Hillary walks free for actual felonies while Trump is under investigation for nothing.”

      Actual felonies? Funny I don’t remember her being convicted? The Rs tried as hard as they could until they were blue in the face and still keep trying even after that. How many dozens of investigations being run by the Rs were there? The Rs had the deck stacked against her and still found nothing that would send her to court.

      Oh?! So you do agree with the Ds that if we presume someone guilty or maybe a harm to society, then they shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms?

      Gimme a break.

      Not to mention, we damn well better make sure to investigate to make sure there was no collusion.

      Here we are over 2 years later and still don’t know for certainty if an outside actor interfered with our election. Don’t know about you but that is way more important then some old lady deleting emails or using a private email server.

      But hey, go ahead and convince me what Hillary did was some how worse then a foreign actor interfering and potentially influencing our elections.

  36. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I will not comply.

    Can’t get any simpler and needs to be said way more often.

    I will not comply.

  37. avatar DerryM says:

    I live near enough to Los Angeles City and County in California that we hear Local News from those areas daily. California has UBC for all firearms transfers {except the CA DOJ lists a procedure for Parents to transfer Title to blood kin children by filing certain Forms with DOJ that do not require a Background Check, but do require the recipient to have a CA DOJ issued “Firearms Safety Certificate”- this type of transfer would be a de facto registration of those firearms}.

    According to the Local News Reports a majority of the firearms-involved crimes in Los Angeles are allegedly committed by “prohibited persons” [convicted felons, underage teens and ‘undocumented aliens’, to name a few]. Where do all those firearms come from? Stolen firearms and Black Market Sales. Yet, extremely rarely, if at all, do we ever hear about Law Enforcement apprehending Black Market firearms sellers. Maybe it happens and is not reported, but if LE finds a person with more than two firearms and a few hundred rounds of ammunition in their possession, the Local News proclaims “..a person was apprehended with an ‘arsenal’ of firearms and ‘hundreds of rounds of ammunition'” as if this was a major news event.

    Armed Robberies and gun-involved homicides and injuries happen in multiples pretty much daily in Los Angeles, The majority are allegedly perpetrated by “prohibited persons” using ‘illegally acquired’ firearms. There is little Law Enforcement focus on the sources of firearms sold to “prohibited persons”, and the Iron Pipeline flourishes despite California’s stringent firearms regulations. UBC’s do not prevent crime, they actually encourage and facilitate it.

    This Democrat sponsored Legislation will only spread the same situation Los Angeles faces daily to every city and town in the U.S….and don’t forget that the Laws being referenced here are in violation of the U.S. Constitution in the first place. Every Federal, State and Local Law or Regulation that infringes the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is fundamentally illegal. Yet, any American who violates these Laws can be arrested and prosecuted by the issuing Government. Tyranny already has a strong foothold in America. Choose what you do carefully.

  38. avatar Jason A Somers says:

    It’s a sin to swear on the Holy Bible, all men lie, the epistle of James. To the best of my memory, I gave all my guns to Diane Feinstein. I do have a question, why does Nancy Pelosi look like she’s passing a 6″ stone?

  39. avatar Al says:

    House Democrat victory on gun control vote = House Republican victories on Obamacare repeal votes.

  40. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Have we read this bill, to see what’s in it?

    I seem to remember hearing something about: ‘If you like your guns, nobody is coming to take your guns.” Certainly the case, if you are an illegal immigrant and fail a bacvkground check … that is, until the R’s snuck that amendment in. If you fail a check, maybe somebody should do something with that.

    Here’s a thought. Can we get that amendment without the rest of the bill? I, for one, think that would be a grand idea for Senat Mark-up, returned to the house in conference.

    #moarpopcorn

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      That would mean Voting on a “Clean Bill” with NO Attachments added to it. I can’t remember the last time that the US Congress “Willingly” vote on a Clean Bill…

  41. avatar George burns says:

    All this stuff is bullshit, if the attorneys and judges stopped plea bargaining these cases, then we wouldn’t keep hearing about this young man had 35 prior felonies and was walking around free as a bird, “again” with a gun, defense lawyers and overworked ADA’s cause this shit, along with Judges who get 150 cases a day. We need more Honest attorneys and judges who will just lock up predicate felons and throw the key away.

  42. avatar Lee Harant says:

    Juat abother attempt for the left to try to gain control over the citizens.
    Can anyone imagine with this current crop of left wing looneys a majority in the house, the same crop in the majority in the senate and the a left wing looney in the white house, how long it would be before we have a civil war.
    How about we all think about this when 2020 rolls around and not be so quick to believe the lies the left spews on a regular basis and think that the republican running against them is as evil as they and the media portray.

  43. avatar Michael Kelley says:

    My guns are not violent!
    When will they get this right – it is the criminals that we need to stop!
    This new law suggested by the Dem’s is stupid – Thank God for Trump and his future Veto.

  44. avatar UpInArms says:

    That picture of Nancy looks like she’s having an orgasm.

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      Given that the bill is pure gun control, and it passed, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she was!

      1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

        UGGGUGGGGGUGUGGGGGGGGHH, what a horrible thought!

        Help! Somebody pass the brain bleach, I need it now!!!

    2. avatar SoBe says:

      She is having an orgasm and we are all at fault for not having forestalled it.

  45. avatar Flying Fish says:

    And, what are we doing about it? Gnashing our teeth? We will be wearing down our gums to the bone. And, then what???!

    1. avatar SwampDaddy says:

      Few will reveal what they are doing to counter this. I suggest, Pray and Prepare my countrymen.

  46. avatar BRONSON SMITH says:

    If Trump signs this.. then.. then their is NO DIFFERENCE between the republicans and democrats…. and Trump loses my support…

  47. avatar Charles holt says:

    Take the amount if deaths by big tobacco and big pharma every year and compare them to gun related deaths. Dems your argument is invalid

  48. avatar Mike says:

    Do you even feel bad that you’re straight lying to people about issues they care about?

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

  49. avatar T says:

    So you couldn’t loan a friend a shot gun to go duck hunting? Or a rifle on a deer hunt? Too much infringement here.

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