House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico




By JOHN BRESNAHAN 02/27/2019 03:48 PM EST

The House passed legislation mandating federal criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions, in the most high-profile congressional vote on gun control in decades.

The House passed the bill on a 240-190 vote. It faces stiff opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate.

###

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/house-passes-bill-to-require-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043

[titaniumsalute]

2. Why?

[elleng]

3. No good reason. Speculation.

[AncientGeezer]

6. We have Backround checks...unfortunately they fail sometimes..or worse. aren't enforsed

We see that constantly...those that should have failed...pass...those that lie get off scott free.

It's not a lack of Law....It's a lack of enforcement of existing Law

[George II]

9. That's not a reason to not expand checks. If those expanded checks stop just one nut out there...

...who is planning on killing 10 people, that's 10 people who will benefit by it.

I wish we could ban guns altogether.

[AncientGeezer]

15. "If those expanded checks stop just one nut out there.."

I was so waiting for this type of post....if Dumpsters wall stops Just One American being killed by an Undocumented immigrant... should we support his Emergency declaration?

If not..why?

[SunSeeker]

39. Immigrants--documented and undocumented--commit crimes at lower rates than US-born residents.

It is shameful of you to post right wing talking points. The wall will not lower murder rates. Immigrants' presence in this country lowers murder rates.

[honest.abe]

12. What a ridiculous argument.

That kind of thinking will get us nowhere.

[AncientGeezer]

18. How so......guns aren't going anywhere...

We aren't going to repeal the 2'nd Amendment...we aren't going to amend the 2'nd....just not going to happen.

[honest.abe]

22. Good grief.. we are not talking about taking guns away.

Why is that always the go to talking point when discussing gun regulation??

[AncientGeezer]

26. Did I say anything about taking guns away?

That asked.....absolutely many here Would support confiscation.
It's not going to happen

Type 'confiscation of guns' in the search box on top of this page....and get back to me

[cstanleytech]

36. That's immaterial though as the article is about large scale registration not confiscation which the

2nd amendment would largely prohibit.

[mac56]

42. No one is trying to take away your precious.

[honest.abe]

52. Not talking about a few DU members posts.

The issue being discussed is the legislation just passed by the House. It has nothing to do with confiscation of guns.

[oldsoftie]

35. Post #9 actually mentions just that; banning guns altogether. Plenty who agree.

And thats who he was responding to earlier.

Regardless I hope this new bill passes the Senate

[cstanleytech]

37. Oh course many would agree with it but to do it would take an amendment to the Constitution

and the odds of that happening any time soon are slim.

[True Blue American]

40. I listened to the vote. This bill covers everyone, gun shows,etc.

[oldsoftie]

46. Good. Hard to enforce, but still good to put into law. And stupid to fight. But the NRA still will

I have a few guns. The govt doesnt know about ANY of them. If i sell one to you & dont tell anyone, the only way there will be a problem is if YOU do something illegal with it and the cops ask you where you got the gun. If not, no one will ever know we did that deal.

[honest.abe]

51. The issue is the legislation just passed... not post 9.

[NickB79]

50. I will agree that we do need to enforce existing gun laws more vigorously

For example: prosecute every person who fails their background check and is denied a firearm. It is in fact a felony to lie on the check, so a denial is very often due to an intentional falsehood entered.

But the GOP has starved the ATF of funding for years. Step one for enforcing existing laws would be hiring THOUSANDS of new ATF agents.

[dhill926]

4. what is your objection to the legislation?

[AncientGeezer]

8. If I want to gift my nephew an old Winchester my G'pa gave me...

Why does he have to be anally probed for being gifted what is covered in the the Bill of Rights?

[PSPS]

13. LOL. "Anally probed?" You're fascinated with fetishes.

[Paladin]

14. "anally probed" ?

You're doing the other side's position a lot of favors. Keep up the good work.

[progressoid]

16. Hyperbole much?

[George II]

17. You can give that gun to your nephew. A little inconvenience to save lives to me is worth it.

[AncientGeezer]

21. You have a Canadin flag prominatly displayed....are you a U.S. Citizen?

[George II]

29. Yes.

[Mr.Bill]

25. And what if someone's nephew

is a convicted felon, a drug addict or just got released from a mental institution?

[AncientGeezer]

28. Then you don't give it to that freak....that's already Law.

Did you Not know that?
If not... why didn't you know that?

Transfer to a felon is a felony

[Mr.Bill]

30. And yet people do it anyway.

[honest.abe]

54. AncientGeezer doesnt care

He would rather have his violent play toys than save innocent lives.

[George II]

31. But if the person who was giving the gun didn't know that person was a "freak", there can be...

...a problem. THAT is why we need formal governmental background checks.

[Mr.Bill]

33. Exactly. n/t

[DrToast]

34. Which well regulated militia is your nephew a part of?

[Duppers]

43. "anally probed"?!! FFS.

Are you on the correct board?



Added to my ignore list.

[NickB79]

45. A 10-min background check at a gun store is that bad for you?

I've worked in a gun store in college and sold hundreds of firearms around 2000-2001. That was back when the 4473 forms were still paper and we called the info into the ATF, so it took 20 min. Now it's all computerized and simplified.

[PSPS]

5. Indeed. How dare a deadly fetish be infringed!!11!!1!

[AncientGeezer]

10. A deadly fetish.....Far fewer deaths from firearms than drugs...hmmm

[PSPS]

11. Whatever. Enjoy your whataboutisms.

[honest.abe]

20. And we have strict laws against drug use.

Guns need strict regulation. They are dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Regulations like this one will help minimize that risk.

[AncientGeezer]

23. We have VERY strict firearm laws

[honest.abe]

24. Not strict enough.

Obviously.

[Kurt V.]

48. the other day i was at Kroger's grocery. A guy had his sidearm on.

this is in fact not very strict gun laws.

[BigmanPigman]

7. About fucking time!

[Archae]

19. Too little, too late.

It's dead meat in McConnell's Senate, and there already are 300 million+ guns out there.

Who's going to enforce this, if it passes?

And how?

Have LEO's breaking down doors and ransacking houses looking for the "wrong" guns?

[Honeycombe8]

27. It won't pass, esp with the private sale inclusion.

But it's a good starting point and maybe we can get something more than the minimum we have.

[yaesu]

32. This should make the holders of Federal Firearms Licenses very happy

but I doubt it will survive the Senate & will never get the little hand signature.

[SunSeeker]

38. K & R

[leanforward]

41. No exceptions to background check.

I've seen weapons mishandled when I was in the military. And we had a lot of time weapons handling.

There are too many "fruit loops" out there that would shoot first and ask questions later. Domestic violence and these home grown terrorists.

With the exception of black powder, heirloom transfers need to be regulated.

[forklift]

44. Good job house

It is a good start

[bluestarone]

47. GREAT

We have to STOP all loopholes!

[Kurt V.]

49. K&R

[Snackshack]

53. Very Good.

Given the capability & capacity for violence or death a firearm provides to one human to do to another human/s there is no reasonable argument against requiring background checks on all firearm sales both private and commercial.