List of Pending Federal Firearms-Related Legislation

Rep. Diana DeGett’s bill isn’t the only one lurking in Congress. There’s no shortage of legislation out there that would to restrict the rights of firearms owners. One kind reader has been trawling the Congressional record looking for relevant legislation and compiling a handy dandy list. While the full text of each bill isn’t yet available, we do have the titles. Oh, and pay attention to the sponsors . . .

  • H.R.141 Latest Title: To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.21 Latest Title: To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms. Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.93 Latest Title: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Cicilline, David N. [RI-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.137 Latest Title: To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.72 Latest Title: To provide for emergency deployments of United States Border Patrol agents and to increase the number of DEA and ATF agents along the international border of the United States to increase resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations and for other lawful activities, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
  • H.R.34 Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.138 Latest Title: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.142 Latest Title: To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • H.R.133 Latest Title:To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act. Sponsor: Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

We can safely assume that the vast majority of these will never see the light of day. Even with less controversial bills, the going rate is a 6% probability that legislation ever sees the light of a plenary session and vote, and 1% that it even passes. And in my opinion, the probability of any of these passing right now is damn near zero. But the ground work is being laid for the midterm elections, enabling those in tough races to profit from the legislation that they’ve authored that would have done something if only congress would have acted — something to promise for the next session.

Politics, man.


  1. avatar Pascal says:

    Some of these don’t even have text, just titles

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      What perfect political cover. Introduce a bill with a title but no guts, and then you can tell your constituents that you filed a bill to fix such and such a problem, but it got tied up in committee by the GOP.

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        Such cynicism. 🙂

        This is the legislative equivalent of the take-a-number tickets at the Cabela’s gun counter. As a back-bencher you can’t use seniority to bump your bills to the head of the line, so you’d better grab file numbers ASAP if you want them to be heard…

  2. avatar In Memphis says:

    Wouldnt H.R.72 make Obama and his Fast and Furios cronies all felons?

    1. avatar borekfk says:

      I was thinking the same thing. I want to see it go through and then the DEA and ATF guys at the border interdict DEA and ATF agents running guns to the Mexican cartels.

      1. avatar Ropingdown says:

        ATF folks chasing ATF folks? That would just call for a staffing increase, and we’ll have twice as many ATF guys selling their used Five-Sevens locally via an internet meet-up. Ultimately prices in Mexico are sure to fall.

    2. avatar Jesse says:

      I was thinking the same thing.

  3. avatar tdiinva says:

    If the gun grabbers had a clue the would require all purchases of ammunition to be through mail order and internet sales. There are no anonymous sales on the internet. You have to give them a means of payment and an address. I can walk into any store that sells ammo and buy as much as want with greenbacks and they won’t know anything about me. Cash and carry is anonymous.

    1. avatar Evan says:

      Since when did politicians have a clue about anything. Yes there are a few good ones, but they are the exception to the rule.

    2. avatar NeonCat says:

      Getting rid of cash (as Federal Reserve notes) has been a dream for some for a while. If everything were purchased via card, it would make a lot of trouble for criminals (since there would be a paper trail for everything), save the govt the cost of printing new notes and destroying old ones, etc., allow the IRS to know how much money you actually have as well as preventing off-book transactions, etc.

      Oh, you don’t want to leave a paper trail? What are you trying to hide?

    3. avatar Jesse says:

      That’s actually a very interesting point.

  4. avatar Martin says:

    The last one H.R.133 the repeal of the gun free school act sounds like it would actualy do some good. Any bets on how congress can mess it up or just ignore it

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      I honestley surprised to see that in there. I still wont comprimise but that much is a good sight to read.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      I believe HR 133 deserves it’s own TTAG article. I’d support that in a heartbeat if it eliminates schools as Gun Free Zones and doesn’t have any other BS attached.

    3. avatar Sammy says:

      Martin, two words Ear marks.

  5. avatar Lance says:

    Seems almost all of the bill are attacking gun shows not a AWB or mag ban except one of course. I feel the gun grabbers dont see the numbers for a ban so they go for other ways to regulate and register all guns instead of a sweeping ban. Keep the pressure on the house make sure all the bad bill die in committee.

  6. avatar Bobby says:

    Mrs. Shoulder-thingy has been a busy, busy girl

  7. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    One bill. One lonely bill supporting our rights instead of undermining them. That’s all we get?

    As I was driving in to work today, the one thought that kept going through my head was that negotiations require a balance of power, and without competing legislation we’ve no alternative but to spend our time on the defensive.

    We need a mix of batshit-crazy, never-gonna-pass-today-yet-still-plausible stuff like National CCW Reciprocity, plus more “reasonable” bills like funding for school security assessments and enhanced training for school resource officers.

    1. avatar David-p says:

      Amen, AlphaGeek, Amen

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      National Reciprocity was tied up by NOT being assigned to committee. McConnell did it at DiFi’s request, probably because it had enough votes to pass, and it would have been embarrassing if Obama had had to veto it during the election cycle. And if she gets the gun ban of her wildest dreams, national reciprocity will be a joke even if it were to pass–there won’t be anything left to tote around!

      Imagining DiFi winning a ban made me suddenly understand why people believe that having and using power is better than sex. And further realize that we are now playing for all the marbles.

  8. avatar eugene says:

    or, my bet is due to the spamming of these bills, gun-owners will take to the voting booth and punt all of these jokers out of their seats.

    1. avatar rangered says:

      Just like we did with Obama?

      These Reps are in what they view as “safe” districts, they will not be in danger of losing their seats for proposing this legislation.

    2. avatar NeonCat says:

      I don’t think Carolyn or Sheila have anything to worry about. Their constituents are happy, nay, *proud* of their idiot congresscritters.

      1. avatar rangered says:

        Add Bobby Rush to that list. I would be surprised if his Chicago district didn’t vote 97% for the President.

        And Jim Moran,Va. had his son, who was a wheel in his campaign, admit to giving advice on how to vote multiple times and was later arrested for assaulting his girlfriend. His district is northern Virginia, the bedroom suburbs of D.C….he is in no danger either.

        1. avatar SCS says:

          I think it was 110% for Odumbass. Remember, it is Chicago the origin of political corruption. Chicago- “Vote early and vote often”.

  9. avatar Howdy says:

    We need to kill off all the of these except HR 133. More than that we need to expand or take back some of what was taken from Americans.

    I say short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns and silencers need to be taken from the NFA list. Why are we being taxed and ruled by this? These don’t make any firearm more lethal or dangerous. The 922r import ban needs to be lifted! Is that ridiculous to anyone else? Reciprocity for concealed carry for all states, while we’re at it.

    I know it would look aggressive, but I would prefer that as opposed to looking weak. I don’t like the fact that we look like we are merely defending our rights to maintain the heavily infringed status quo.


    And thank you for providing a list of the new bills and clearly defining what each proposes.

    Those knuckleheads are depriving all Americans including themselves in ways they just don’t get.

    1. avatar Larry says:

      I agree. The best defense is a good offense. Does someone have a good pro-freedom connection in Congress that might be willing to go on the offense with some pro-gun rights bills?

  10. avatar Silver says:

    Thank goodness we don’t live in an oppressive dictatorship. Cough.

    Doesn’t everyone remember the schoolyard advice (back when schools were more than zero-tolerance mental conditioning factories)? The only way to get a buly to back down is to stand up to him. Screw all this defense. It’s time gun rights advocates started incessantly pushing for the repeal of the NFA laws and demanded Constitutional carry.

  11. avatar Koop says:

    I wrote this in another thread, but it bears repeating.

    The first order of business in establishing a tyranny: disarm the populace as soon as you possess the political power to do so. (essentially consolidating power and preventing effective future opposition)

    See also: Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, and any other military dictatorship you care to name.

    A free people may possess arms as they wish. Subjects and slaves may not. For any student of history, arms confiscation should be considered an act of war on the general population. (go ahead, look up the millions killed by Communism in the 20th century alone) Fortunately for those of us in the U.S., the citizens of Lexington and Concord understood what it meant when the British army came to seize their arms. They knew it to be an undeclared act of war, and responded accordingly.

    Educate your Congressmen. Arms confiscation is an act of war, because of what invariably follows.

    1. avatar W C says:

      I’ve got my eyes on Australia for what invariably follows.
      Here’s what happened after 10 years:

  12. avatar Coyote Gray says:


    Are there any bone tossers here? Something the gun grabbers will be happy with, but that we all know, won’t derail our rights? Personally:

    H.R. 141= Would this really affect anyone negatively? Seems like a small thing
    H.R.21= WTF is it? No details on it
    H.R. 93= Seems this creates a frame work for FFL’s who lose their license to transfer their goods somewhere else. Whats the problem here?
    H.R.137= Bad guys who shouldn’t get guns, are identified in the NICS. There is a problem with this? Yes, NICS sucks, but it isn’t going anywhere. So why balk at this?
    H.R.72=Really? We want to fight over having more border agents between the US and Mexico?
    H.R. 34= Get F’ing Bent. No thank you.
    H.R.138= See response to H.r. 34
    H.R.142= Get rid of bulk reporting…then maybe. This would definitely be a boon to business for our local mom and pop gun shops.
    H.R.133= Yes. For Christs sake, Yes.

    Like EVERY other subject in this country, there never seems to be civil discourse and real middle ground. At some point, there has to be give and take. Obviously, I want to take more than I give.

    1. avatar Crazed Java says:

      “H.R. 141= Would this really affect anyone negatively? Seems like a small thing”

      The government does not need to be involved in private affairs. Period. Also, it is unenforcable. Anyone can ignore it and how would anyone know? Yet another burden for the law-abiders and another law for criminals to break. Bonus points, some people will become criminals because they either won’t bother or will be ignorant that this is even a law. All it does it create yet another meaningless law for us to break.

      “H.R.142= Get rid of bulk reporting…then maybe. This would definitely be a boon to business for our local mom and pop gun shops.”

      No, for two reasons.

      One, we live in a digital age. Forcing to face-to-face transactions for goods and services is a 20th century solution. Ammunition is not the problem. This is another means of control.

      Two, more practically, there are people who live in areas where ammunition is difficult to come by and Internet sales may be their only option. Why deprive them?

      Addressing technological advances by banning the use of said technology is backwards thinking.

    2. avatar David-p says:

      I’m curious about H.R. 21 as well “provide greater safety while using firearms”. Maybe this would outlaw movie theater, shopping mall, and school shootings. That would help right now. Wait……what……It is against the law already, then what makes these idiots think any of these laws will help?? Oh wait there is H.R. 133, may not stop all shootings but at least provide the gunman with a couple extra ventilation holes early on. I hope H.R 133 is the 1% that sees the light of day.

    3. avatar Mike in NC says:

      Probable infringements evident just from the titles:

      137 / 141 seem to overlap; goodbye to all private sales without using an FFL as middleman
      93 – permanently close gun shops, importers or manufacturers by preventing inventory transfer to another FFL
      34 – government license required and standardized / mandated paperwork for all transfers
      138 – outlaws possession
      142 – licensing ammo dealers; what will they call “bulk”? 1000? 100? 50? 2?

    4. avatar Bill F says:

      After face to face ammo purchasing will come recording and tallying individual ammo purchases. Then a national database to keep track followed by a 50 round per month limit, or some other whimsical “doing something about it” legislation. These asshats gleefully add a feather to their cap for every bad idea they conjure up. There is no such thing as “tossing them a bone”. That’s just inviting the vampire into our house.

    5. avatar New York Stagehand says:

      Appeasement is a loosing policy. It has consistently allowed the slow erosion of the 2A.

      Anti, 1934: we just want a little teeny bit…
      Anti, 1968: only a tiny thing…
      Anti, 1994: it’s a small thing…
      Anti, Now: be reasonable, you’ve never compromised!

      No. The answer is NO.

      Roll them back, hard and fast.

      1. avatar Matt in SD says:

        I see what you did there.

  13. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Wow talk about a laundry list!

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    I know that we’re all shocked — shocked! — that all of the anti-gun bills were introduced by Democrats — except the one seeking repeal of the Free Fire School Zones Act.

    1. avatar Ropingdown says:

      -and that one’s not anti-gun.

    2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      I think you meant to say “Democrats from urban NY or IL districts”, Ralph. There’s a definite pattern there.

      Though frankly I’m a little surprised that none of the Reps from California urban areas have gotten in on the fun. Maybe they’ve been told by their leadership (Pelosi & Feinstein, specifically) that they’re to hang back and vote for the Feinstein legislation instead of muddying the waters with any of their own.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bingo. She’s going for a clean sweep, and packed it all into one pretty little package.

  15. When are some pro 2A pols going to submit bills to remove gun free zones or further press for carry reciprocity? Everything that is ever presented is anti 2A and we’re always on the defensive. If you’re always on defense then you will eventually lose some ground. There needs to be some push back and it’s disappointing that we haven’t really seen that happen yet in any force.

  16. avatar TRUTHY says:

    Instead of “co-sponsors” on these bills, it should say “co-conspirators”

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
'Twitter for iPhone'
'Twitter for iPhone'
'Android.*(wv|.0.0.0)' ]
'Android.*(wv|.0.0.0)' ]