UFA Extension Passes House

The UFA extension, that only takes the expiration date out another 10 years, has passed the House on a voice vote, meaning no one objected enough to call for a recorded vote. That’s basically the equivalent of it passing unanimously. I agree with John that renewal was a fore drawn conclusion. It’s Schumer’s games that we need to be prepared to fight on. Now they have a choice: they can either pass the House extension, or be seen playing political games with renewal, in which case nothing gets passed and the UFA expires.

Roll Call has an article about it here. NRA has issued a release stating that expansion of the UFA is not what’s up in the House right now, and they will oppose any expansion.

18 Responses to “UFA Extension Passes House”

  1. Archer says:

    The question to the NRA, then, is “Will any Congress-person’s vote for/against expanding the UFA count for/against their NRA grade?”

    • Sebastian says:

      If they are saying “we oppose the expansion of the UFA” they are saying yes, it will count toward their grades. In DC talk, if they go “neutral” on something, that means it will not count toward their grade either way.

  2. Garrett Lee says:

    I have an question. Why is the law constantly extended out, and why was it not simply in perpetuity like so many other laws? (I like the fact that it’s limited in its lifetime, but it’s odd that they chose to do so, I think.)

    • Have Blue says:

      I think the sunset provision was due to the recognition at the time that detection techniques would eventually improve. Have a gander at this:

      That article is from 27 years ago. Moreover, it was written into the law that the Attorney General should lower the detectability level in light of improved detection systems. A quarter century later, we now have thermo-conductive imaging, backscatter X-ray, and millimeter wave scanners available. And rather than decreasing the detectability requirements as a result, we have legislators trying to push in the other direction.

    • Sebastian says:

      Because a law that has no repeal date will never be repealed. A law that does have an expiration date, you get to reassess in another X years. It’s kind of an agreement to fight another time, each side believing that perhaps by then, they’ll have more leverage. One reason I’m not getting too worked up about extension, is that I’m willing to gamble than in ten years they will be in a weaker bargaining position than they are now.

  3. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Gotta love this little gem:

    Rep. Rob Andrews, New Jersey Democrat, said he supported the extension but is “very disappointed” with House Republicans’ posturing on gun control items like expanding background checks and limiting high-capacity magazines.

    Asked why he’s not fighting for a broader extension, Mr. Andrews said “because we’re not in the majority.”


    • Sebastian says:

      Rob Andrews has never met a gun control bill he thought was sufficient.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        Sebastian… As someone who has voted for Dems with the hopes of things changing for the better for gun owners, what say you on this? I would love to hear at least one Democrat from somewhere repudiate their party on their madness regarding guns. Is there at least one? They can’t all be this insane can they???

        • Sebastian says:

          There were a lot of them in the 110th Congress. But they all were voted out of office because they voted the wrong way on Obamacare. What we’re reaping now is a consequence of that. I’m not saying it was wrong, but that’s because I’m not a single issue voter. But there was going to be consequences to all the blue dogs voting the right way on guns and then getting massacred in 2010.

          The consequence is that the Democrats have had people like Obama telling them they know the true way, and winning while doing it. If the gun issue is going to be perceived as a losing issue for the Democrats, then Obama’s vision for the Democratic party has to become a loser. It hasn’t yet, though 2014 might change that if the backlash is hard enough.

          • Jack says:

            Though Obama himself won his national elections while being relatively mute about guns. His stance was obvious if you looked at his record but he wasn’t too open about it on his run up and first term.

            Maybe if Sandyhook had happened before the election to his second term he would have risked going out on gun control and facing an electorate. But the way things happened he got his cake and could eat it too.

            Which is also part of the perception versus reality thing.
            (That also connects to a massive party loss due to the Obamacare backlash being spun as a gun control win.)

            • Bill Twist says:

              No, I think he would have been mostly silent about it. Look at the Aurora Theater shooting that happened just 4 months before the election. Actually, let me re-phrase that: He wouldn’t have been silent about the tragedy, but he would have been silent about asking for new restrictions until after the election.

              After a couple of incidents had happened during his first term, it became obvious what he was doing: Avoiding the topic studiously in order to not ruin his chances for re-election. It was even noted by some of us prior to the 2012 election that he wasn’t going to move significantly on gun control until after he won his second term. Once that happened, all he had to do was wait for the next mass shooting event.

              • Bill Twist says:

                A case in point, here is an AP article from November, 2011 which points out the Obama administration was unlikely to do anything on the gun control front until after the election:


                • Jack says:

                  So that shows a real “lead from behind”. “You go out and rally for gun control! You’ll win just like I did (by being quiet until term-limted)!”

                  Which is about right. Look at Colorado. The Dems got their majority due to several reasons there, one of which is that when they ran most of them avoided the gun issue.

                  And now that the chickens are coming home to roost, the party is asking the rank and file to fall on their swords.

  4. Andy B. says:

    “v That’s basically the equivalent of it passing unanimously.”

    And so we learn that despite a recent history of so many House members being willing to go to the wall over so many things (“No Compromise,” I think they call it), and to vote forty-leven times to kill Obamacare, every single one of them, including any of those Tea Partiers who are out circling the moons of Jupiter regarding any number of other issues, is willing to vote for gun control, as long as they think we’ll accept Gun Control Lite.

    Pretty much what I’ve always said.

    Now they can get back to mandating hoohaw scans, and other things that really matter.

    • Patrick says:

      I understand the angst. Feel it.

      That said, this move could kill the law. Consider another scenario:

      Now that the bill is passed from the House (unmolested), the Senate gets to vote on it up/down or take the chance to amend. We know that the Dems there will amend to add all sorts of dumb stuff. When they do, it has to go back to the House. They shoot down the amendments, hold firm in the conference session…and the whole thing dies, “after the Democrats in the Senate killed a commonsense law by adding provisions that deny rights to lawful people.”

      Many House members (esp Tea Party) probably think this is junk and would vote to kill it. This is big for our community and the NRA doesn’t like the bill, either. So why no fight?

      Killing it in the House means they give Democrats the press (and there would be lots of MSM on it) that ‘commonsense regulation’ is being tossed out the door due to ‘extremists’ in the GOP. Again. The House took that hit a few times in the past year and I hope they are learning to avoid those direct fights and to get a little more careful in how they fight. IOW, let the Dems take themselves down by their own foolishness.

      Stopping this in the House basically means the Dems get their press release and distracting moment in the sun, but pay zero price. It would be 100% GOP. The Dems need that for 2014. Any distraction from ObamaCare. Gun Control is something they are hoping to use as one of those distractions. There is a chance here to turn the tables, a little. Let them do dumb things to poison the law. Then they get to explain why the House voted to continue it but the Senate killed it by playing games with ‘commonsense law’.

      Yes, this could easily just get passed by the Senate as-is, in which case we got ten more years of a law that means little to nothing for our community.

      Obama and the Dems are constantly peddling alternate stories to the MSM that do not involve the health care mess. Gun Control, Immigration Reform, “Equal Opportunity” and student loans are all being pushed. So far nobody is biting because they are less sexy than the ACA mess and because the GOP is not biting. The GOP is not fighting out loud anymore. They are not pushing back on the other stuff (yet). They are literally sitting back and letting the Dems wallow in their own mess (and by saying that I do not mean to disparage pigs, which I think are wonderful creatures).

      For once in my adult life, it seems like the GOP is actually being smart. Of course they could ruin my appraisal by getting all squishy or by screaming “GAY! ABORTION! ILLEGAL! IMPEACHMENT!”, but for now I would like to believe they are actually fighting using Jiu Jitsu instead of, “let’s just get punched in the face repeatedly.”

      And yes, I acknowledge that I will probably be proven wrong. But hope springs eternal…

      • Patrick says:

        To be clear, I am not advocating that the GOP give in and agree with the Dems. I just think that rather than go full frontal assault, they can do better by playing the long game and not giving the President the ammunition he needs to keep blaming everything on the House GOP. Sitting back and “not saying no…or yes” bleeds the Dems of one of their primary fight songs. It takes away their chief excuse.

        They really want the House to fight in public. They need the GOP to be openly hostile. So much so that they are willing to throw their new biggest issue – immigration reform – under the bus just to start the fight. Today’s news is that Reid says “Boehner will cave on immigration reform”. That kind of disrespectful talk pretty much ends any compromise they were working on. But they don’t care about amnesty – they need the fight over amnesty to help survive 2014. They want Boehner to bristle and fight back. They want him to draw a line and say “NO!” to amnesty.

        If the House GOP sits back and plays the Dems out on amnesty (or whatever), the Dems lose the thing they need to bring out the lefties to the polls. At the same time the GOP hammers the ACA and gets the independent votes they need in 2014.

        I hope this is actually the plan and not just me playing internet commando.

  5. Clay says:

    The left seems to be hopped up on some pretty powerful LSD right now, so it would not surprise me if they try to please their base and end up causing the whole law to expire.