HR 1112 enhanced background checks charleston loophole
(AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Previous Post
Next Post

Two days, two gun control bills passed by the House of Representatives. Sorry…as the Democrats are fond of portraying their latest efforts to restrict, complicate and raise the cost of gun ownership, they’ve passed two “gun reform bills.”

On Wednesday they voted to outlaw private gun sales (while preventing 18-20-year-old adults from buying handguns, and raising the prospects of high mandatory transfer fees). Yesterday, they passed an “enhanced background check” bill.

As CNN describes the bill,

The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church — one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

The so-called Charleston Loophole, if you’ll remember, resulted from 1) the Columbia, SC police failing to enter Roof’s arrest record into the NICS system, and 2) the FBI failing to complete the background check within the mandated three days.

This bureaucratic failures — hardly unusual — combined with the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives in November opened the door for the civilian disarmament caucus to “do something” about the Charleston loophole with HR 1112. The fact that there is no Charleston loophole was utterly beside the point.

But as the NRA-ILA makes clear, the House Bill that passed yesterday does much more than add a little extra time for the FBI to do its business.

Under (HR 1112), the 3-day safety valve would be eliminated and replaced with a procedure that provides gun buyers with no protection. If an FFL initiates a check and does not receive a response from NICS after 10 business days, the prospective purchaser may petition the FBI to permit the transfer to proceed. The FFL may not proceed with the transaction until an additional 10 business days have elapsed from the date of the petition.

Existing federal law limits the validity of a NICS background check to 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Because H.R. 1112 uses business days and the NICS validity provision is in calendar days, in practice, H.R. 1112 would have no default proceed available.

For example, if H.R. 1112 were to become law, gun buyers who are delayed on the busiest gun buying day of the year, Black Friday, would not be able to clear their delay under H.R. 1112’s provisions before their NICS check expired. Black Friday 2019 falls on November 29th, so the first day that the prospective purchaser could file a petition would be December 14th.

The additional 10-business day wait after the petition would make December 31st the first day that the FFL could transfer the firearm, but that would be prohibited because the NICS check expired on December 29th. The purchaser would have to begin the process again with another NICS check, with the likely result being another delay and the process beginning all over again.

Perfect. Like HR 8, HR 1112 now goes on to the Republican-controlled Senate. And, again, President Trump has promised to veto it if it gets to his desk.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Even if there had been 20 business days to complete the check, the Charleston murderer still would have been able to buy the gun if the FBI didn’t discover the error until 2 months later, when they were investigating AFTER the attack.

    “The errors came to light as investigators examined a gun purchase Roof made two months before the shooting.”

    • NRA-ILA stated that the with current law, only a conviction would stop the transfer. That is just the FBI blowing smoke up everyone’s ass. The NRA-ILA basically stated that the FBI did nothing wrong and that he SHOULD have been able to buy the gun.

      • Debunked lie on the NRA ILA position, but thanks for playing.

        He would have been a prohibited felon if not for Obama/Holder recommended and pushed changes in PLEA and sentencing levels for the amount of drugs he had in that arrest

        • Yes but the Democrats don’t want to blame the Obama Admin for no wrong doing look at fast and furies the guns got into the wrong hands and an officer was killed and no investigation. Bull some one should be held accountable for that.

    • “Contrary to inaccurate statements made by the FBI, the perpetrator was not prohibited from possessing firearms. Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing firearms if they are an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The FBI has contended that the perpetrator’s arrest would have prohibited him from possessing a firearm. In turn, this has prompted gun control supporters to claim that this instance proves the FBI should be given further time to conduct NICS checks, even though the FBI had more than two months to investigate the validity of the transfer in the case. To sustain a conviction for firearm possession by an “unlawful user” federal courts require the drug use to be “sufficiently consistent, prolonged, and close in time to [the] gun possession . . . .”1 A simple drug arrest does not meet this standard.”

      Funny how TAG did not quote this part

      • You are constructing an elaborate strawman.

        He would have been a prohibited felon if not for Obama/Holder recommended and pushed changes in PLEA and sentencing levels for the amount of drugs he had in that arrest. The amount of drugs he had was a felony punishable by much longer than one year until those guidelines.

        If not for Holder pushing for reduction in criminality of the amount and type of drugs Root had (and he clearly had distribution amounts of hard core drugs) not only would he have been prohibited, he’d may have been in prison when the attacks took place.

      • Reportedly, he admitted to the drug use, so there was no need to rely on the single arrest; it’s as if he’d answered yes on the form 4473. Relevant time frame appears to be one year before the attempted purchase.

        “An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year…”

  2. Tyrants like Pelosi and Schumer are the reason the right to keep and bear arms is in the bill of rights. Neither of these two worthless anti-Americans are worthy of holding office since they have violated their oaths of office to defend the constitution. Vote them out and support term limits.

    • They’ll never be voted out if their constituents like and agree with them. There should be a law that says ‘if you vote against guns, you can’t be surrounded by them’, or some such words. Same law would say ‘ if you vote against a security wall, you can’t live in a gated community’.

    • …but, but, we tried doing SOMETHING…. It’s the THEIR fault it’s not law.

      Symbolic effort (for now). A dry run of their eventual majority control of the senate and/or presidency efforts.

    • Chuck Schumer will be a senator as long as NYC wants him to be, there won’t be any voting him out. Red upstaters don’t have the numbers to do anything about it. If he is voted out, it will be in favor of someone more radically left. Considering NYC has a mayor who is a full-throated Communist, I shudder to think of what his successor will be like.

    • “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

      ― Joseph Stalin

  3. “The so-called Charleston Loophole, if you’ll remember, resulted from 1) the Columbia, SC police failing to enter Roof’s arrest record into the NICS system, and 2) the FBI failing to complete the background check within the mandated three days.”

    Dan , Please read the FBI response letter. You linked to it. The arrest was in the system. The problem is that a arrest by itself is NOT enough to to deign the sale. Even the NRA-IL admits that the arrest is not enough. “A simple drug arrest does not meet this standard.”

    Sound more like that they need to change the law to deign the transfer if there is are charges that are pending final court decision. But that would make too much sense.

    • I didn’t get into the weeds regarding the circumstances surrounding his many arrests, but see this from Wikipedia:

      According to James Comey, speaking in July 2015, Roof’s March arrest was at first written as a felony, which would have required an inquiry into the charge during a firearms background examination. It was legally a misdemeanor charge and was incorrectly written as a felony at first due to a data entry error made by a jail clerk. Despite this, Roof would not have been able to legally purchase firearms under a law that barred “unlawful user[s] of or addicted to any controlled substance,” such as the Suboxone, from owning firearms.[31][32]

      • If we’re going to go down that particular rabbit hole then we need to define what a “user” is so that we have a standard.

        Even if we assume that a possession conviction (Comey’s assertion here IMHO is bullshit because they have not even legally established possession in court at that poi t and therefore certainly can’t have established use) necessarily means the person was using the substance, then how long after they stop using it do they cease to be a “user”?

        I mean, if someone parks a car, gets out and starts walking we immediately recognize them as a “pedestrian” rather than a “driver”. Their cessation of the action of driving means they instantly change status and don’t regain that status until they begin driving again.

        The day after someone quits smoking pot permanently they are certainly no longer a user. So can we expand the definition of “user” just in case they start smoking weed again at some time in the future? Or can we say that because they’re not puffing a joint while they fill out the 4473 that they, like a pedestrian who owns a car, are not a user because they’re not using at the time?

        • This is what happens when they go past the ” Shall not be infringed ” part. Crooked lawyers and politicians will subvert any and all laws to serve a purpose.

        • From this section of CFR, relevant time frame appears to be one year before the attempted purchase:

          “An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year…”

      • Really??? Did you read the whole NRA-ILA press release that you quoted? The NRA-ILA stated that there was NO reason that he should have not passed the background check. But I guess Wikipedia is a better source.

        That being said, the fact is that anyone who is out on bail for a charge (not an arrest) that is serious enough they should not be able to buy a firearm. There should be an easy way for the court clerk to be able to put that into the system the moment that bail is set. If the charge is NOT serious enough to be held for bond, then is is not serious enough to curtail any rights.

        For now I’m going to go with the NRA-ILA and just deal with the fact that on occasion fucked up people are going to buy guns from FFLs and kill people. Just like the fact that on occasion governments are going to go nuts and start killing people too.

        • I sure hope that you were being facetious about you “guess Wikipedia would be the better source”.

      • Alternatively Roof could have bought or stolen his gun instead. But that wouldn’t help with their narratives.

      • Except the amount of drugs he had was a felony just a couple of years before.

        We are getting in the weeds by using terms like “user” when it is clear he was a felony distributor under the law just a couple of years ago.

  4. Let the Libitards continue to look foolish. Let them pass all the bills they wish that make common folks criminals. While doing nothing to stop or hurt any real criminal activity. Let the world see how stupidly idiotic these supposed laws are. That stand no chance of passage. Cry wolf enough and no one, not even their supporters will be believed.

    • “Let the world see how stupidly idiotic these supposed laws are. That stand no chance of passage.”

      In the not-distant future, they *will* pass those laws, and a Leftist president will sign it.

      If you can’t see that, you’re delusional…

      • Eventually some Libitard will be in the White House again and they might even control both houses.
        Some here might have a big problem if that occurs, or when it occurs.
        I just hope there is someone left around to fight the good fight.
        I know it wont be me. I will probably be long gone from this world.
        I don’t plain on being 80- 90+ years old and still fighting gun control.
        I will for now though.

  5. Anti-Second Amendment politicians just keep Knock – Knock – Knockin’ on the Door of Tyranny. And, one day soon, patriots are going to open that door…..and the politicians aren’t going to like the unintended consequences they’ve asked for.

  6. Because the rino republican politicians in the House did not stand behind our President, they were not re elected. Many of the senators will do the same and we will have the same result, a congress completely dominated by socialists. This would open the door to impeach our president. Their plan is to impeach Donald Trump, then do the same to Pence. The job would then fall to the speaker of the House. Far fetched ? I don’t know, I hope they fail at this but our freedom is in the balance.

  7. I think that Everyone going through a firearm purchase take a safety class at the range, no matter their experiance,as there is too much complacency and holier than though attitudes. People should have a secure place to store their guns so the kids don’t take them. I see nothing wrong with background checks to see if a nutcase wants to kill people, everyone should want to be sure that this doens’t happen. So what if your “RIGHTS” are dinged, the people who you elected can make and change laws, so they can make sure that insane people are caught. Magazine limits should be at less than 10 rounds and start restricitng braces and short barrels. We don’t need ar-15’s in our society, the full auto killing is bad.

    • That you would put rights in quotes says everything we need to know about you.

      Also please check your spelling.

    • This is a troll account, yeah? You just want to give us a chance to show off?

      You’re not really bringing that much uninformed hogwash in to the comments section of this particular website, right?

    • Ah Sonya, you make an excellent tyrant. So let me throw one out there, Sonya, I think you should have to take a writing AND civics class every time you post or write anything on a social forum. Every time Sonya, because as you said, “..So what if your “RIGHTS” are dinged..”

      You are obviously ignorant of the Bill of Rights, and therefore dangerous to the Republic. Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword.

    • “…the full auto killing is bad.”

      The amount of lulz packed in to just six words is impressive.

    • Feel free to leave my country tomorrow clearly the Constitution and you are incompatible.
      FYI everything you mentioned is an infringement thus unconstitutional.
      Canada is nice and has everything you want. but the real question is will they take you?

    • Sonya north of 90% of gun crime (as well as knife crime) comes from prior criminals . Lock them up longer and gun violence plummets.

      Literally nothing in your statement is based on fact. Similar states with stronger gun storage laws do not have one iota lower gun accidents or child access crime. So we know for a fact gun storage laws have not prevented a single event. The established risk factor for child violence victimization, be it accidental, negligent or intentional; be it with a gun, knife or bludgeon is a person with prior criminal arrest history domiciled in the in the home or dating the mother.

    • “Everyone going through a firearm purchase take a safety class at the range,” – translates to no guns for the working poor who don’t have time, the elderly who have trouble getting out, people of color in locations where no local range is available, etc. When restrictions much less burdensome are applied to voting, progressives have no problem seeing that they disproportionately impact minority communities; why would it be any different for 2nd Amendment rights?

      “Magazine limits should be at less than 10 rounds” – The would-be murderers can simply stock up on magazines for their attack; it is less practical for the average citiven to tote around a bunch of magazines, so this would only impact law-abiding gun owners.

      “start restricitng braces and short barrels.” – Short barrels on rifles are already restricted, have been since 1934. Addign a brace merely makes a handgun larger and less concealable, while allowing greater accuracy. Again, more a benefit to the law-abiding citizen than to a mass murderer who doesn’t care about inflicting collateral damage.

      “We don’t need ar-15’s in our society, the full auto killing is bad” – Full-autos have also been restricted since 1934.

  8. Well, the R’s did manage to amend onto this a req to report detected illegal immigrant gun purchases to ICE. That may reduce their gun running to cartels, but everything is a trade-off…

    The amendment passed because some D’s voted for it. Since the bill was “must pass” politically, they had to then vote the bill through. I hate to credit The Stupid Party with political competence, but this is delicious. #moarpopcorn

    Now we have on record via the Washington Post, Queen Nancy demanding that the D’s “stick together” regardless of what their districts want, AOC declaring that they’re ” keeping a list” — “You better believe we’re watching.” Who said that before? I mean in govt – er – lately. And rank n file D’s plus the media (But, I repeat myself.) declaring “We gotta change the rules til we win!”

    It’s not like we didn’t know that DiFi would ban everydamthing, that the point is moar infringement, not safety, and that they think this is an issue to energize their base.

    The way the D-party just did this one will energize the other guy’s base.

  9. Do not underestimate the power of the Dementedcrats. They’ve been playing this game a long time. I would not be surprised if they had an ace up their sleeve knowing that the bills are not likely to pass through the senate. Pelosi and Schumer are a lot of things but they are not idiots. Evil always has a plan.

    • Oh, you are right, of course: its fodder to delegitimize the Senate. “Those people” stopping a greater “us” from Doing The Right Thing.(tm)

      And the electoral college, of course.

      The D-party want in the end governance by American Idol: ubounded snap referendums, because they think they’ll always win those.

      Near-term its all positioning for the next presidential. They’ve already decided it’ll be a turn-out driven election, so positioning issues to use to get out their base, elect whoever Prezzy, take the House n Senate, n have their way with the rest of the country, ignoring the courts along the way.

      /A Thought Experiment

      The D’s aren’t running against the R party, but against a reality TV star. They’re acting like they’re running against the historical, feckless Rs.

      So, D’s P O-ed that they “won” the irrelevant popular vote have been posting up the “national popular vote” policy by state, like CO last week. What do they think happens to turnout when blue-state red voters realize they can actually influence the electoral count? What happens when the other campaign courts those people, as they did not last time? How much did Herself run up the “win” in blue states where voting R doesn’t matter? Not much.

      Anybody notice the reelection campaign already spun up with their data-guru in charge? I’m anticipating a 50 state national issues / outcomes campaign for turn out, with a targeted localized push at flippable states n districts, based on tbe encumbents’ policies n votes.

      The D-party does have a plan: it’s playing to their base. Two years later n they still can’t go from “How did that happen?” to figuring out how that happened. The hint is, people didn’t so much vote for The Orange Crush; they voted against Herself & co.

      The D’s can win just by making themselves less distasteful. They can’t do it. Meanwhile, playing to their base mobilizes the other guys.

      They haven’t figured out campaigning at the speed of tweets either. They’ve shown their strategy — mobilize the base; their issues — gun control, green weenies, n etc; and their tactics — game the game from “fraud” to “suppression” to “new rules.” Also their goals n character.

      You don’t win on “He’s a jerk.” by being jerkier than he is.

      The U S elected with foreknowledge, a vain, brittle, reactive, orange-haired serial philanderer with decades of sketchy business practices and less than no govt experience, *and* gave the notoriously feckless party he hijacked the House and the Senate. The D people might try figuring out why *literally anybody* thought that was the better option.

      Meanwhile, they keep positioning the incumbent administration as disasterous, without wondering why ever more people not them don’t think so.

      It is gonna be so lit.



    • Point isn’t to actually stop un-checked sales. Point is so that they can crow about having “done something” to stop gun violence.

  11. “But mah Trump is baed! He’s a false flag for those leftisims and HAS NEVER DONE A THING FOR GUN RIGHTS.” Um, right. I’m just going to make a running list of these instances for the flat earthers here that actually believe that trump is the bane of the presidency.

Comments are closed.