Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: House vote on expanding background checks

  1. #1

    House vote on expanding background checks

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...heim-ntp-feeds

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on Wednesday on a pair of bills to expand background checks before gun purchases, two years after a similar House effort failed to make it through the Senate.

    The House Rules Committee on Monday will take up the two bills that Democrats, who control the chamber, say are aimed at closing loopholes in the background check system.

    The Rules Committee action is a procedural step before the full House votes. A congressional aide said the chamber was poised to vote on the bills on Wednesday.

    The House passed two bills in 2019 to expand background checks but they were never taken up by the then-Republican-controlled Senate. Nearly all legislation in the 100-member Senate requires 60 votes and the prospects of overcoming that hurdle are uphill at best in the evenly divided chamber.

    The issue of gun rights is contentious in the United States, where numerous mass shootings in recent decades prompted calls from many Americans for stricter regulation of firearms and ammunition.

    The U.S. Constitution protects the right of Americans to bear arms. Republicans generally oppose measures to tighten gun restrictions.

    One of the bills under consideration would make it illegal for anyone who is not a licensed firearms importer, manufacturer or dealer to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed person without a background check. The bill has exemptions, including gifts from relatives and transfers for hunting, target shooting and self-defense. A version was introduced in the Senate last week.

    Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the bill, which would extend background checks to gun shows and other sales, would close "dangerous loopholes in the existing background check system to help keep all of our communities safe."

    The other bill extends the initial background check review period to 10 days from three. Under existing law, the sale of guns can proceed if a background check is not completed within three days.

    Representative James Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, said that provision permitted a man to obtain the gun used to kill nine people at a historic Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. Clyburn says that because of the three-day rule, at least 75,000 people have obtained guns since 1998 who should not have.

    The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) opposes both bills, arguing the three-day requirement "ensures that the FBI carries out its background check duties in an expedient and responsible manner."

    The NRA-ILA argues the other bill makes it a crime "to simply hand a firearm to another person" and suggests exceptions "are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners."

    (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Peter Cooney)

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Thumbs down

    "Background checks" are a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
    "Background checks" are a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
    Unfortunately sitting Democrat POTUS who just moved in the White House does not seem to care as much about 2nd amend as the MAGA PIE (President-In-Exile).
    PIE's SCOTUS picks are still in power though and could still play a role in upholding the Constitution.


  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    Unfortunately sitting Democrat POTUS who just moved in the White House does not seem to care as much about 2nd amend as the MAGA PIE (President-In-Exile).
    PIE's SCOTUS picks are still in power though and could still play a role in upholding the Constitution.

    Does every thread have to be about Trump? FFS
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  6. #5
    Even if you're among those who don't see him as President anymore, he's still influential in Congress and has financial resources to order polling on Congress members who don't defend 2nd amendment to hold them accountable. Why would anyone want to leave such a powerful force out of this vital Constitutional debate on what majority sees as a fundamental right?
    He took out NRA lobby and knows a thing or two about 2nd amend.

    Why are some people suddenly becoming allergic to Trump's name when he is still the leading presumptive 2024 Presidential candidate for GOP?
    Biden may have branded himself as a traditionalist/conservative Dem but doubtful that he will stand up for 2nd amend.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    PIE's SCOTUS picks are still in power though and could still play a role in upholding the Constitution.
    I don't know if you actually believe that or if you are being sarcastic.

  8. #7
    Universal background checks are actually nothing compared to some of the more illegal bills the Dems have introduced such as HR 127 and HR 5717. The contents of those bills go way beyond background checks.

  9. #8



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    this vital Constitutional debate on what majority sees as a fundamental right?
    The thing is, it isn't a debate.

    If you let it be a debate, then you've lost it.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    I'm being sarcastic but that statement is a reflection of what most MAGA believers have been claiming for last 4 years.
    Yeah, that's actually tragic. The only pick I could somewhat accept was Gorsuch. I was against Barrett and Kavanaugh from the get-go. And boy, was I viciously attacked for questioning their "conservative credentials" by other MAGA supporters, amusingly. They all thought they were getting tough fighters, and all they got in return was spineless cowards who decided to please John Roberts, another low-life scumbag, who somehow made his way to Chief Justice.

    Looks like Biden won't even have to pack the court. Kavanaugh and Barrett will do it for him. The fact that these two were handpicked by the Federalist Society was the biggest red flag and should have been a warning sign for Trump not to pick them. Granted, the guy got backstabbed from everyone both on and after Jan 6, but seriously, how bad a judge of character do you have to be to keep picking backstabbers and RINOs?

  13. #11
    Background Checks are just a Red Flag that they don't want to hire..

    on the plus side,, My Background prevents Identity Theft.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Background Checks are just a Red Flag that they don't want to hire..

    on the plus side,, My Background prevents Identity Theft.
    LOL

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  15. #13
    Won't get 60 votes and is dead in the water.

  16. #14
    I have nothing to hide.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Won't get 60 votes and is dead in the water.
    They have already talked about ending the filibuster or even neatly sidestepping it, so don't be so sure. Plus, don't forget that to pass HR 1, they changed the rules so that HR 1 bypassed the Judiciary Committee, whose job it is to discuss the constitutionality of bills. It's high time we understood that the Dems don't have the same respect for rules and laws as we do. We need to start abandoning looking for "legal ways" to stop them too.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-03-2013, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-18-2013, 09:50 AM
  3. msm & background checks
    By Acala in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 12:35 PM
  4. McCain emerges as key senator in expanding background checks
    By green73 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-24-2013, 10:01 PM
  5. 2011 Background Checks
    By Mach in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-28-2010, 08:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •