Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT SO-CALLED "UNIVERSAL" BACKGROUND CHECK LEGISLATION H.R. 8 AND S. 42

As proposed, H.R. 8 and S. 42 would forbid a person from transferring a firearm to another person unless facilitated through a licensed firearms dealer.  Both parties to the transfer must appear jointly at a willing dealer, who must conduct a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and comply with all state and federal requirements as though he were selling or transferring a firearm out of his own inventory.  

While proponents of the bills often refer to it as a background check on sales of firearms, the true effect of H.R. 8 or S. 42 would be criminalizing otherwise lawful conduct with firearms. The overbroad nature of the proposed legislation would criminalize many transfers that take place as part of hunting, recreational shooting, and even self-defense.

While some differences between H.R. 8 and S. 42 do exist, their overall effect on law-abiding Americans would be the same.

CURRENT LAW

The law regarding sales and transfers of firearms generally follows the sales of most regulated products in the United States.  Commercial sales are heavily regulated, but incidental sales and transfers by persons not in the business of selling firearms are not subject to some of these regulations.

Current federal law requires that “dealers” of firearms hold a federal firearms license and that any person who acquires a firearm from a dealer passes a background check that includes an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”).

In addition to the federal requirements on licensed dealers, current federal and state law prohibits anyone from knowingly transferring a firearm to a prohibited person or to a person who is a resident of another state.

ABOUT H.R. 8/S. 42

 On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is just a small part of what these overbroad pieces of legislation would do.

Traps for Law-Abiding Gun Owners

Both bills would make it a crime, subject to certain exceptions, to simply hand a firearm to another person. Any time gun owners carry out this simple act, they would potentially be exposing themselves to criminal penalties. While the bills do create some exceptions, they are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners. Accidental violations of these complicated provisions are not excused under the proposed legislation.  

This legislation is not about public safety. These bills attack law-abiding gun owners by placing further burdens on gun ownership and use. For the anti-gun groups and politicians intent on criminalizing the private transfer of firearms, this legislation is just another step in their effort to extinguish America’s vibrant and legitimate gun culture.

Expanded Background Checks Don’t Work

Proponents of so-called “universal” background checks claim that this legislation is the “most important” thing that can be done to stop dangerous people from obtaining firearms. This is a lie. There is no evidence that expanded background checks are useful for this purpose.

Just last year, a study by anti-gun researchers confirmed that expanded background checks in California did not reduce gun homicides or gun suicides.

This finding is consistent with a review of past studies on expanded background checks by the RAND Corporation that found that “evidence of the effect of private-seller background checks on firearm homicides is inconclusive.”

In 2013, the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice researched so-called “universal” background checks and determined that they would be not be effective without further harsh firearms restrictions and efforts to combat straw purchasing.

Criminals are not deterred by background checks. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent ... .” A Chicago-area inmate explained this reality to researchers from the University of Chicago in relation to Illinois’s stringent firearm licensing regime for a 2015 study, stating, “All they need is one person who got a gun card in the ‘hood’ and everybody got one.”

A 2016 Department of Justice survey of “state and federal prisoners who had possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were serving” found that the most common source of prisoner firearms was “Off the street/underground market.” This was defined as “Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.” Less than one percent had obtained their firearm from a gun show. 

Private transfers would have to be processed by federal firearm licensees (FFL) who could charge high fees or refuse to participate altogether; even people who want to remove firearms from their homes could be hampered from doing so by this bill if they lacked access to a participating FFL.

The End of Many Firearm Transfers and the Beginning of a Firearm Registry

H.R. 8 and S. 42 language states that participation by dealers in private party transfers would be voluntary. Because of the legal conflict and uncertainty, many dealers might refuse to run these checks. Those dealers that are willing, must agree to assume the risk and uncertainty and are likely to demand costly fees for the service.  The language states that the dealer may charge a reasonable fee, but it does not cap or otherwise limit the dealer's discretion in this regard.

Even transfers that do not result in a change of ownership would presumptively have to go through H.R. 8/S. 42 formalities. Thus, dealers would potentially have multiple records of the same firearm changing hands again-and-again, essentially creating a paper trail of everybody who handled the firearm.  The record-keeping burdens on the dealer would be considerable, and the records generated could form the basis for a later registry not just of those who own firearms, but those who merely took possession of one, for any purpose or length of time.

As an advisor to the Obama administration wrote, the effectiveness of a universal background regime "depends on … requiring gun registration…;" this bill weakens protections against using NICS checks to create a registry and sets the stage for future firearm registration requirements.

 

 

Tell members of Congress to oppose "Universal" Background Check Legislation H.R. 8 and S. 42!

Members of the media, U.S. Congress, and anti-gun groups continue to mislead the public on so-called "Universal" Background Checks. Find out what they're claiming, and then find out the truth.

Related
With Proposed Federal Legislation, Anti-gun Advocates Seek to Impose May-Issue Gun Ownership

News  

Thursday, May 2, 2019

With Proposed Federal Legislation, Anti-gun Advocates Seek to Impose May-Issue Gun Ownership

In 1987, only ten states had concealed carry laws that treated the Right-to-Carry in a manner consistent with ...

New Jersey Governor Hopes to Price Low-Income Residents Out of the Lawful Gun Market

News  

Monday, April 29, 2019

New Jersey Governor Hopes to Price Low-Income Residents Out of the Lawful Gun Market

It’s no secret that the Garden State is hardly Eden for Second Amendment supporters, who are subjected there ...

Minnesota: House and Senate Omnibus Bills Update

Friday, April 26, 2019

Minnesota: House and Senate Omnibus Bills Update

On Monday, the Minnesota House is scheduled to consider the House Public Safety/Judiciary Omnibus legislation.

Washington Examiner  

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Democrats are still lost on gun control and presidential power

A gentleman, out for a walk late at night, comes upon a drunk who is sprawled beneath a ...

Minnesota: Senate to Consider Judiciary Omnibus Bill Tomorrow

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Minnesota: Senate to Consider Judiciary Omnibus Bill Tomorrow

Tomorrow, the Minnesota Senate is scheduled to consider the Senate Judiciary Omnibus bill, SF 802.  Anti-gun legislators might ...

NBC News  

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Gun Control Case Study: A Mass Shooting, Major Reforms, Then A Political Backlash

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper bills himself as the experienced, consensus-building Democrat in the 2020 presidential race, one ...

Breitbart  

Monday, April 8, 2019

Hawkins: Democrats Ignore NZ Gun Control Failures, Push Confiscation

Democrats overlooked the gun control failures leading up to the March 15, 2019, New Zealand mosque attacks, choosing ...

Maryland Action Needed: Urge Your Lawmakers to Oppose Gun Control on Final Day of Session!

Sunday, April 7, 2019

Maryland Action Needed: Urge Your Lawmakers to Oppose Gun Control on Final Day of Session!

Tomorrow April 8th is Sine Die for the Maryland General Assembly and numerous gun control bills may come ...

Minnesota:  Urge Committee Members to Oppose Anti-Gun Amendments to Omnibus Bill

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Minnesota: Urge Committee Members to Oppose Anti-Gun Amendments to Omnibus Bill

Today, the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee has convened a hearing to discuss its Public Safety Omnibus bill. 

Tennessee: Busy Week Ahead for Committees in the Volunteer State

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Tennessee: Busy Week Ahead for Committees in the Volunteer State

On Tuesday, April 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider gun control legislation. 

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.