House passed FAIR universal background checks bill

The House just passed a fair and reasonable background checks bill.

It requires all sales of guns to have a background check of a buyer, before sale can take place.

The new law EXEMPTS the following gifts/sales of guns:

-between spouses
-between siblings
-between Uncles, Aunts, Nieces and Nephews
-between domestic partners
-between parents & children
-between siblings
-between grandparents & grandchildren
-temporarily loaning a gun to someone to prevent immediate bodily harm or death.
-temporarily loaning a gun at a shooting range.
-temporarily loaning a gun while hunting, in the presense of the owner.
-if gun is inherited due to another person's death.

This bill, is fair. It exempts family members. It allows lending guns to friends for lawful and even to strangers for emergency purposes.

Republicans should embrace and let this bill pass, or offer a reasonable alternative that requires background checks for all sales between strangers.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text?q={"search":["h.r.8"]}&r=1&s=1

 

McConnell won't let it see the light of day in the Senate......... All this is is a way to harass lawful gun owners, and it won't do a thing to stop transfers between criminals. It's not as bad as some UBC laws I've seen, but as my dad used to say dog **** isn't as bad as cat ****, but that doesn't make it good.

 

its the best UBC law we've ever seen, though it should mandate that no NICS check may cost more than $5 and they should also set a system where people can access NICS records on the web and get a simple "yes" or "no" or "delayed" answer.

if Conservatives dont like this UBC bill, propose a better one.

it exempts relatives.

it exempts lending for hunting or at a shooting range.

it exempts guns lent to people for self-defense.

it exempts guns inherited in a will.

what more do people want???????

 

The problem is that it won't do a thing to stop criminals from getting guns, while adding burdens to law-abiding citizens. That is what is wrong with it. Did you not understand my colloquialism. This is a dog **** bill. yes, it's not as bad as a cat **** bill, but that doesn't make it good . Also, basically speaking, IMHO, any background check to be able to utilize a basic civil right is wrong.

 

so you oppose ALL background checks, and think a criminal, a rapist, a murderer, a child-molester should be able to just walk into Walmart and buy all the guns he wants.

that's great. wonderful. cheers to you

 

No, it doesn't exempt sales to family.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren"

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

"(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm"

What is the legal definition of "imminent"?

"(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting"

Do private ranges count? Legal shooting areas like National Forests or the Pawnee Grassland?

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing
[/quote]

Actually, the loanee doesn't have to hunt in the presence of the hunter.

Not for sales, it doesn't. That includes trades of goods or services, too.

It's still not enforceable, it doesn't nothing to address straw purchases, theft or illegal street sales, and the Democrats shot down the best alternative. If the requirement is a background check just between strangers, then this bill doesn't do that, nor will any UBC force criminals to conduct background checks on their criminal customers.

And it still is not enforceable.

 

If that criminal has a legal friend, no UBC or other background check will stop them from getting a gun.

 

“(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

There is no upper limit on what an FFL can charge. If an FFL could only charge $5, why would they do these?

Tom Coburn's bill.

Not for sales between relatives.

But not at all legal shooting locations.

We have this now.

Direct access to NICS and no criminalization of a transaction between non-prohibited persons.

 

these are all legit issues, that can be addressed in an updated Senate bill.

yes, sales between relatives should be explicitely exempt, I believe it was an oversight.

 

Well, since the Senate can't pass anything that will make this enforceable, I don't think you'll like the "update".

Except that every state level UBC doesn't exempt sales between family. It's no oversight. It's just stupidity.

UBCs still aren't enforceable <===== address that.

 

its enforceable with random stings by the ATF, responding to internet and newspaper ads.

 

Do you think that criminals take out ads to sell to other criminals?

The ATF doesn't have enough staff to arrest the tens of thousands of felons caught by name and address trying to buy a gun. Do you think they're going to divert resources to perhaps catch someone selling a hunting rifle to a stranger?

If I sell a gun to my brother, they can't catch either of us. If I buy a gun from my best friend, they can't catch either of us. If I permanently trade guns with my hunting buddy, they'll never catch either of us.

Criminals will still buy from criminals they know, or through straw purchases, or just steal guns. This is a nothingburger law, and it won't get through the Senate.

 

no, but criminals surely respond to ads in papers or the internet.

 

do you oppose all background checks?

 

So....a felon given a gun by his spouse? ???

 

Or his brother. ...or other relative.

 

I certainly doubt their efficacy. I would be willing to use a system that allows direct access to check a stranger, but I'd sell to a friend with no hesitation without a background check.

 

Presuming they know he's a felon, it's a crime already. If they are still willing to give it to him, knowing that they are committing a felony, a UBC law won't deter them.

 

None of which changes that it is ultimately unenforceable, and will simply be ignored as individuals continue privately buying, selling, and trading firearms between one another without performing the required background check. Since there is no corresponding universal registration of every firearm in existence in the united states, the above serves no purpose in even being discussed. To the contrary, the above is nothing more than laying the groundwork to argue that universal firearms registration is now needed.

 

funny thing that the was missed was that the dems said no to the part where if a illegal tries to buy a gun they get reported to ICE.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...gal-immigrants-fail-firearm-background-checks
but rejected GOP-led efforts to amend the legislation to alert law enforcement authorities when gun buyers, including illegal immigrants, fail those background checks.
If this was really about stopping criminals then why forbid ICE from being informed when a criminal tries to illegally buy a gun?

 

Background checks won't stop the criminals from getting guns. Those criminals are not wanting to buy guns from a business that has a lot of witnesses and cameras. If there were no background checks, they would not be buying guns from Wal-Mart.

That said, I oppose background checks on theory, but I can live with the current NICS system. I just don't pretend that it does anything to stop criminals from getting guns. Criminals (per the U of Chicago study on the subject) get guns from people they know, not from gun shops, Wal-mart or gun shows. They don't want non-criminals to be witnesses to them buying guns. UBC won't do a thing to stop it. All background checks do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy guns, while doing little or nothing to stop criminals.

 

bull ****ing ****.

if there were no background checks, criminals would be flooding to Dicks, Walmart, and all other gun stores to buy guns.

there would be NO reason for them not to.

 

The ATF doesn't even bother to follow up on people who's NICS check has been denied to try to buy guns (i.e. people that they can arrest for criminal charges (lying on a federal form (4473))).

 

The reason is security cameras and non-criminal witnesses. Before the NICS system, criminals weren't buying guns from those places. Why? They don't want law-abiding people as witnesses.

 

prove it