search
top

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 Vote Happening This Week

The Dems could have had “universal background checks” years ago if that’s what they actually wanted, but they don’t. This is not an accident. It’s part of the plan. So take action now. Even the people cosponsoring the bill need to hear from us. The H.R. 1112, if you haven’t heard of it, will increase the waiting period under the Brady Act from 3 to 20 days. The default proceed was placed in the Brady Act to prevent the government just halting all gun sales by shutting down NICS. It’s an important safeguard. Also, once it’s 20, it’ll be 30, and then no time limit. All the government has to do is refuse to conduct background checks and no one will be able to buy a gun. This could be done by executive fiat, especially if he or she were to declare an “emergency” on guns, as Pelosi has suggested.

I think we need to start looking at overhauling the whole system, personally. Instead of a dealer running a background check on you, you run one on yourself. You could set up kiosks at FFLs. The “all clear” it prints out has a QR code on it that allows the check to be verified as genuine and belonging to the person it was issued to. So all you need to do is verify the identity of that person. For people who don’t want to keep going through that, make the Type 03 FFL apply to collectors of all firearms. I’d even be willing to trade a limit of, say, 20 transfers a year that can be done on a type 3, with more than that requiring a type 1 or 2, which we don’t restrict in the manner we do today.

But they would never go for this. Because the purpose of these bills is not to ensure every sale gets a background check. The goal is to frustrate you out of exercising your rights in the first place.

19 Responses to “H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 Vote Happening This Week”

  1. You’re suggesting some real common sense reforms that would actually accomplish something while respecting individual rights? How quaint.

    The core pro gun “it’s my right under God whether you like it or not and shall not be infringed mofo” gang want nothing more than zero restrictions of any kind. And as you’ve pointed out the anti-gun gang only wants control so they can kill the right entirely.

    Kind of like with healthcare. The Dem base still demands a 1950’s style totally socialist single payer healthcare system even though it’s proven to be less than perfect. The Rep base wants status quo, even though it leaves some people out and has affected many of us negatively at some point. But negotiate for something truly better? not a constituency for that.

    Keep fighting the good fight. But at the moment we’re in the days of extremes where compromise is evil.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’d ideally prefer no restrictions, because I don’t think any of this shit accomplishes anything. But I’m realistic, and get I have to live with other people who don’t think that way.

      • To be clear … I’d also prefer no or extremely limited restrictions. But when a large % of the population wants something different, you need to look for compromises. Right now we seem to be stuck in the mode of “F*** you. As soon as I get a 1 vote majority I’m coming for all of it. Everywhere.”

  2. Ian Argent says:

    This is nuts. Have things really changed that much since 1994?

  3. TexasCharlie says:

    I like the idea of a buyer doing his/her own background check at a kiosk in a gun store. For private sales a buyer should able to do the same self-check at home using his computer to access the NICS system. Obviously there is no easy way to compel a private buyer and seller to do the self-check, but they could be incentivized to do so by allowing the seller to keep the printed QR code which could exempt him from any civil liability for selling to an unlawful buyer or for any future criminal use of the transferred firearm.

  4. Joe says:

    Your suggestions are somewhat close to how it’s done in European Countries with Relaxed Gun Laws like Switzerland, Slovakia, and The Czech Republic.

    Also, Local Police Departments do the Backround Checks, not their Federal Agencies. County Sheriffs Departments should be doing those Backround Checks for here in the U.S.

    • Sebastian says:

      The Brady Act originally required the local police to do the checks, but local police can’t be commandeered by the federal government (anti-commandeering doctrine) to execute a federal program. So it has to be the feds.

      • Richard says:

        I think you could allow the locals to voluntarily do the checks, in return for a fee. Otherwise, it defaults to the Feds. I assume lots of big cities would refuse and it defaults to the Feds. That’s OK because I trust big city governments even less than the Feds. In rural areas, the Sheriff’s would probably be glad to provide the service as long as it doesn’t hammer their budgets.

      • Zermoid says:

        I thought it was because of it being an unfunded mandate?
        Feds could require the local law enforcement to run it if it paid for the costs, but because it wasn’t funded it was illegal?

  5. Matt says:

    If they wanted backgeound checks they could have had it years ago. Here’s my version of what COULD have passed… Let myself and another person walk into local law enforcement entity during any open office hours. Give our ID, and run through NICS. If we are both ok, we get copies of a “may proceed” form good for 5 business days and unlimited arms sold between us in that time. Also, this is only for a transfer of OWNERSHIP of a firearm…not a loaner, not a he can use it for a day. OWNERSHIP. loans, borrows, watch my guns while I’m gone, are not under the purview of this. And it shouldnt identify firearms type or quantity and doesnt cost me or the other party a dime.

  6. Ian Argent says:

    Both passed the House, expected to die in Senate without a floor vote.

    Trump has apparently vowed to veto.

  7. LameBear says:

    Will someone explain to me just exactly what part of the Second Amendment allows for this?
    No where, in the text of the Second Amendment, have I been able to find the words, “until”, “unless”, or “except”. What I have found, in the text of the Second Amendment, are the words, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Has anyone, in congress, the mental abilities necessary to understand the term, “infringe”?
    Our “elected representatives” are SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION … not someone’s “opinion” of what the Constitution says, but what the Constitution actually does say.
    If one is SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and one breaches that SWORN OATH it is, quite simply, TREASON. The Constitution is the SOLE AUTHORITY for the existence of the Republic and is the ONLY THING that gives our “government” (or anyone in that government) any “authority”, WHAT-SO-EVER.
    Breaching the Constitution is an attempt to overthrow that Constitution, and thus, the Republic, itself ….. that is “warring against the Constitution & the Republic, and is, BY DEFINITION, an Act of Treason.

    It is time that WE THE PEOPLE hold those SWORN TO THE CONSTITUTION liable for their actions

  8. 321 says:

    Does this bill count “transfers” as letting someone else shoot your gun at the range?

  9. Ian Argent says:

    Default proceed. How often does that happen? The gun store clerks I know socially have implied “not often.”

    (But apparently the Charleston Shooter got a gun on a default proceed? Or did NICS answer yes because they didn’t find the potential DQ in time? It was unclear).

top