House of Representatives Considers Two Gun Bills

U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives

U.S.A.-( After the shootings in Las Vegas, NV and Sutherland Springs, TX Congress tabled all gun bills to the dismay of many firearms owners. It appears that Congress is ready to continue forward with gun bills. This week two gun bills move forward in the House Of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee will vote on both bills this week.

The first gun bill, which is strongly supported by all gun organizations, is a national concealed carry reciprocity bill. This bill will let any person with a concealed carry permit in one state carry their firearm in any other part of the country. It will work similar to how a drivers license works now. The Bloomberg backed group Everytown For Gun Safety has come out strongly against this proposal.

Willes LeeLtCol Willes K. Lee (ret), who is an NRA board member and President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), speaking on behalf of himself said, “The Second Amendment affirms our God-given right of self-defense. National Right-to-Carry reciprocity remains the NRA, and my, number one legislative priority. It is about time Congress moved on President Trump's campaign promise.” He then went on to say, “This is common sense legislation to make Americans safer. All the 2A community should call their congressman now. We need reciprocity, and we want to see the votes on the floor prior to the 2018 primary elections.”

The second bill is a direct result of the shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas. Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, entered the church and killed 26 members of the congregation. A good citizen armed with an AR15 wounded the gunman and proceeded to chase Kelley as he was trying to flee the scene of the murders.

In 2012 Kelley was court-martialed by the United States Air Force on charges of assaulting his wife and child. The USAF discharged Kelley on a “bad conduct” discharge in 2014. Kelley should have never been allowed to buy a firearm under federal regulation, but the USAF failed to provide the FBI with the proper paperwork which would have prevented the sale.

This bill is supposed to close holes in the in the NICS system. The bill would implement punishments for federal agencies that do not comply with criminal reporting requirements. This bill goes as far as stopping bonuses for political appointees at the organizations that are not in full compliance with the FBI until they do meet the NICS standards.

It will also reward states that do report correctly to the NICS system. This reward would be through federal grant preferences. The attorney general will have to produce a semi-annual report on which agencies are complying and which are not.

One part of the bill that might seem scary is that it will also look at how many times criminals have used bump stocks in crimes. On the surface, this provision might seem like an anti-gun victory, but it isn't a victory for the anti-gunners at all. After the shooting in Las Vegas, I started to look into how many crimes were committed using bump stocks. I could not find any other crime using the device outside of the horrific crime in Las Vegas.

The fact that criminals do not use bump stocks in crimes should show the feebleness of banning them as just as New Jersey is set to do via a bill (A5200) that is set to be released from a committee on Thursday. It will give the pro-gun community more ammunition to fight against the Bloomberg backed groups and their false narrative.

Both bills are expected to pass The House Judiciary Committee and move to the floor for a vote. There is no timetable for that vote.

About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at

  • 14 thoughts on “House of Representatives Considers Two Gun Bills

    1. To all that are critical of the passage of HR 38, I have a feeling that you don’t live in New Jersey as I do. This bill isn’t perfect, but we have been denied our Second Amendment rights for so long that I applaud ANY progress!

      1. …or CA, or NYC, or MA, etc. Brother, you do not stand alone! Only by pulling together and ceasing to slander those pro-gun people who, for whatever reason, happen to live under a dictatorship. Many just don’t seem to understand that any anti-gun group which is successful in one state, is cheered on to push the same agenda in another state.

        It’s not all about guns. Many decades ago, eco-Nazis said that they were going to get rid of corporations which cut down trees and such, and they would do so by hook or by crook, even lying (as they did with the Spotted Owl), one state at a time, until there is no more logging or whatever. They now say the same about guns, right down to the minutia of eliminating lead from the environment. They have been saying that they will end hunting. Today, they have begun saying the same thing about sport fishing.

        We should be as solid as they are.

      2. I have two non resident CCW permits so hoping big this passes , and I feel it will due to the baseball field shooting with steve scalise

    2. This bill is a sham. It still leaves much of who, what, where someone can carry up to the states. If for instance, someone from New Hampshire was to carry his/her weapon in Connecticut, and it was a Sig Sauer 226 with a threaded barrel, it would violate Connecticut’s AWB which makes a semi-auto pistol an assault weapon because it has a threaded barrel. The fix for this and every other unconstitutional and oppressive gun law is for the Supreme Court to once, and for all, rule these laws unconstitutional and force those communist states to repeal them. Lastly, we should have Constitutional Carry, which is insured in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

      1. First, I totally agree regarding SCOTUS. There never should have been a NFA (1934). SCOTUS should have nipped that in the bud with a simple statement that the words of the authors of the 2d Amendment exists yet today for anyone to read about the words they used and what they meant. That the authors, James Madison and George Mason fully supported an armed militia comprised of citizens between the ages of 14 and 65, who, when called upon, could respond to a national crisis. That such militia required no training or membership in order to do what was considered a natural pastime (hunting and self defense). Further, the authors clearly stated the need for the people to be armed against a government which ignored the rights of the people.

        Those few words contained in the 2nd Amendment was, in the opinion of the authors, plain and simple. Both gentlemen were called upon to explain the 2nd to the several state legislatures during the Constitutional ratification process. Each legislature recorded their testimony and thereafter accepted the 2nd as written. The words of the 2nd were subsequently entered into the individual Constitutions of the states, and added to each new state’s Constitution upon entry into the union thereafter.

        Under the law, courts are required to use “best evidence”. Normally, best evidence would consist of witness statements. When a witness is no longer available, the second best evidence becomes words uttered by the witness and recorded in official documents (minutes of a state legislature), correspondence between the witness and a third party, in personal journals, or in personal writings (books, pamphlets, etc). SCOTUS has always had the words of the authors available to them.

        I do not see how this is a sham. Granted, there are weaknesses, however, weaknesses can be corrected at a later time without the House needing to start over. We are at a point in history where we need a win if we are to survive. Thus far, the wins, for the most part, have been in our opponents favor.

        I might also point out that Millennials have been coming out in numbers in favor of the 2nd as it has always been understood by the masses.

    3. If I remember correctly, and I might be wrong, there is a part of the NICS Bill that makes a misdemeanor a disqualifier. If this is the case that is a problem and needs to be fixed.

      I listened to a good portion of the testimony but wasn’t able to get through it all last night. The one thing that was immediately clear was that Rep. Raskin, from Maryland is a true Socialist whose goal, if he could achieve it, would be complete control of Citizens lives by the State. This man is extremely dangerous to the concept of a free and open society. With regards to the Reciprocity Bill, he advocated for and presented an amendment (which was defeated) that would have allowed any police officer to detain you for ANY period of time, weeks if necessary, to validate that your out of State permit was, indeed, legimate and not a forgery. And by detain he meant detained by the roadside or in custody in jail without being placed under arrest. Fortunately, Mr. Buck, from Colorado, called him out on the un-Constitutionality of that in no uncertain terms. It was a heated debate.

    4. The first bill is long overdue. If I can drive anywhere in the US with a single state’s DL, then the same should apply for my CHL/LTC/Other.

      The second bill is totally a waste of time and money. There exists policies that state they agencies must report the information and in what time it must be reported. Just start firing people and management like a business would. You don’t do your job, you have no job. Another law? Sounds of stupidity and swamp talk to me. These people are exactly why Trump was elected. Do nothing and change nothing. I will play this out for you, law goes into effect. Person gets caught not doing their job and guess what, nothing happens as they will have a dozen excuses why they didn’t do it. If my job at work was to report our tax liability and I didn’t do it, then I would be fired.

      So stupid and yet we let them get away with it by electing them again and again.

      1. @Al, I concur. Driving is only a privilege, but bearing your firearms is a God given, Constitutionally enumerated pre political Civil Right. How could one’s Right be more regulated than a privilege? How could one’s Right be regulated at all? Who is sovereign, The People or our governmental employees?

        1. Prohibition got far better treatment than has the 2nd, in that the lefty progressives had to get an amendment passed to ban alcohol, and the righty conservatives had to get an amendment passed in order to get Prohibition repealed. And booze, at best, would only be a privilege, not a right (though many might disagree LOL)

          Jefferson said that the means to change the Constitution was in the hands of the people. That he hoped they would think long and hard before making any changes. That they would consider the context of the writing and the time limit. In either case, no change to an enumerated right may be left in the hands of elected politicians or courts. Where the right belongs to the people, with the government only guaranteeing to hold that right sacred, only the participation of the whole of the people would be a means of acceptable change. For if politicians or courts might change or repeal a right of the people, then they have the power and authority to change any and all rights at any time with no regard for the people, and the people would have no recourse for petition for redress of grievances.

          Consider the political myth of Magna Carta of 1213 and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[c] Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.[4] As was typical of the times, rulers often made agreements with their underlings in order to achieve some purpose, and then repealed the agreement under a claim of rule by “Devine Right”.

          1. @DaveW, Yeah, the Magna Carta did not have much in it for the yeoman. The importance of the Magna Carta was that all men had to obey the law. Meaning that, for the first time, even the King had to obey “the Law”.

      2. Al… you misunderstand all those dear souls on the political Left…

        From their point-of-view, criminals just need education, that’s all… so the Leftists pass one piece of legislation, one law, to let criminals know that a particular action is actually illegal. Then they pass another (virtually identical) law, in order to let criminals know that it is really illegal. Then they pass another (identical) law, in order to let criminals know that it is really, really illegal. Then they pass another (identical) law, in order to let criminals know that it is really, really, really illegal. Then they pass another (identical) law, in order to let criminals know that it is really, really, really, REALLY illegal. They are certain that, at some point in the process – if we just give it time – criminals will finally understand, and the law will work! Isn’t the wonderfulness of Leftists’ gigantic mental acuity impressive?

        For those few Leftists who are literate – and are actually reading this – that was, indeed, sarcasm (of the highest order), in case you were wondering, there…

    Leave a Comment 14 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *