The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

House passes gun control bill

by Alyssa Jackson
Posted 2/28/19, 12:40 pm

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the first of two sweeping gun control bills that would require federal background checks for all firearms sales and transfers. The bill passed 240-190 after eight Republicans voted for it and two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Collin Peterson of Minnesota, voted against it. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 is the first major gun control legislation Congress has considered in nearly 25 years. Its provisions include a requirement that gun sellers notify federal immigration officials if an illegal immigrant tries to buy a gun illegally.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., opposed the bill, saying in a video tweeted by the National Rifle Association before the vote, “Law-abiding citizens will be treated as criminals.” Scalise was injured during a 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Virginia.

The second bill, expected to be taken up Thursday, would extend the review period for background checks from three to 10 days. Currently, a transaction can automatically proceed after three business days pass without a finalized check.

Both bills face dim prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate and a likely veto from President Donald Trump. The White House said the bills impose unreasonable requirements on gun owners.


Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Alyssa Jackson

Alyssa is a graduate of the World Journalism Institute.

Read more from this writer

Comments

You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • David Troup's picture
    David Troup
    Posted: Thu, 02/28/2019 02:27 pm

    An illegal could only purchase a gun illegally.  They've already broken the law by entering the US illegally.  But you aren't allowed to ask that question because it would be descriminative.

    Most of the parts of this law makes sense if you could trust your government.  But the Progressives are so dominant, activistic and hostile to half this country your can't trust them not to abuse the law.  The NSA and intellegence agencies are still breaking the law and spying on our citizens, even after numerous investigations and lawsuits.

    Don't forget the 18 yr old veteran of the Afghan war had his AR-15 confiscated.  That's a clear denial of his constitutional right.  But because so many of our judges are activist Progressives,  it's a long road through the appeal process.  So one of our military veterans who fought with  assault rifles, had his self-defense rifle taken away unconstitutionally.

    Next, their coming for you!

  •  CaptTee's picture
    CaptTee
    Posted: Thu, 02/28/2019 11:21 pm

    If this bill reads like a lot of others that have been proposed lately, the law would be violated, if someone willed a firearm to a relative without doing a background check.

    Suppose, I bought a rifle at a store (background check) for my wife, because she doesn't do bureaucratic paperwork of any kind. It is kept in our safe that she has access to. Do I have to do background check on her to legally give it to here or allow her unrestricted accress?

    Suppose, my wife has shoulder replacement surgery and can never fire a rifle again. Does she have to do a background check on me to give it back to me?

    On the broader question, when did "guilty until proven innocent" become the law of the land?

    I think we need background checks for reporters to have access to keyboards, including a test on the Constitution (supporting the view that nothing is in the Constitution, unless it is ratified. We certainly can't have any communists or pedophiles telling us what is news! We need "common sense media control"!

  • OldMike
    Posted: Fri, 03/01/2019 03:18 pm

    CaptTee, you need to know (others should also know) the scenario you describe is already a violation of Federal gun laws. 

    You say, “Suppose I bought a gun for my wife...”  No one may go make a gun purchase with the intention that gun is for someone else. That is called a “straw man purchase” (from “straw man” a fictitious figure put forward as a party to a dispute, etc). 

    Laws against straw man purchases are to prevent you—who have no criminal background—from purchasing a gun for someone who has a criminal background and is barred from buying or possessing a gun. 

    Now, in your scenario, if you own a gun and it is in your home where your wife has access to it, presuming she is not barred by criminal history etc from possession of a firearm, there’s no crime in her having access or even using it lawfully (hunting, self-defense etc) in most states and localities.  But if you live in CA or NY or NJ or MA or some other restrictive place, check your laws first.

    It is possible to buy a gun as a gift for someone but not in all states or localities. And attempting to do so raises so many questions it’s just better not to directly buy a gun as a gift. Instead, give your recipient cash or a gift card to make the purchase himself. Even take him/her to  the gun store to buy it, so the background check is run on the person who will be the actual owner of the gun.

    It should go without saying, any attempt to help an ineligible person obtain a gun IS A CRIME, and should be punished.  

    This extends even to short term or temporary possession.  I will NOT take a friend to the range for recreational target shooting unless I know he/she does not have a felony record.  And yes, I ask! Under some of the “universal background check” laws that are being proposed, I might even be required to take my friend to a licensed gun dealer for a background check first.  Which I do regard as severe government overreach and infringement on the Second Amendment!

     

     

  •  notalemming's picture
    notalemming
    Posted: Thu, 02/28/2019 11:55 pm

    It is a travesty that the Democrats want to "curb" the violence perpetrated on some folks by others with a gun by restricting the responsible gun owners.  As the old saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Indeed, such senseless acts of violence, murder, are to be condemned, and the guilty punished.  But what of the violence upon the innocent?  What about the violence of abortion?  Would it bother the liberals more if abortions were performed by using guns?  Or what about the just born babies that await their fate while being made "comfortable"?  If the mother and her doctor decide that the baby should have died in the abortion, but alas, the child did not, but let's say "it was meant to be killed", so if the doctor then decided to kill the infant with a .44, would such acts of violence be condemed?  There is no greater disease than that of a liberal mindset.     

ADVERTISEMENT