House Passes Universal Background Checks After Republicans Rip Measure

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert was one of several opponents of H.R. 8 to blister the bill during floor debate Wednesday. (Screen snip C-SPAN)

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The House of Representatives on a 227-203 vote, passed a measure to expand background checks to nearly all gun sales in the country, according to the Wall Street Journal, on the morning after a sometimes fiery and frequently emotional floor debate that brought out traditional arguments on both sides.

According to Vox, “Universal background checks are the top legislative priority for Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group and network that includes Moms Demand Action, and are supported by President Joe Biden.

Reaction from gun-rights groups to the House votes was swift.

“These bills are a transparent attempt by gun control advocates in Congress to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans under the guise of addressing the violent criminal culture in America,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The truth, however, is that neither of these bills will do anything to solve that problem. By giving full power to unelected government bureaucrats to indefinitely delay and prevent lawful firearm transfers, H.R. 1446 could ultimately destroy the Second Amendment rights guaranteed to every law-abiding American by turning it into a privilege enjoyed by a select few.  H.R. 8, so called “universal” background checks, cannot be enforced without a federal gun registry, will not prevent crime, and will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals for simply loaning a firearm to friends or family members.​  If Congress is serious about the safety of law-abiding citizens, it should have passed concealed carry reciprocity so that Americans can safeguard themselves and their families across state lines and throughout our country during these dangerous times.”​​​”

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, warned this would open the floodgates to an even more ominous measure.

“With Thursday’s House passage of two extremist gun control measures covering so-called ‘universal background checks’ and closing the so-called ‘Charleston loophole,’ it opens the pathway for Congress to focus on H.R. 127,” he stated.

H.R. 127 is the sweeping gun control bill sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. It calls for gun owner licensing and registration, mandatory psychological examinations of gun owners, mandatory gun owner insurance, mandatory minimum prison sentences for gun owners who do not comply, and bans on whole classes of firearms and original capacity magazines.”

CCRKBA is currently running a national TV campaign warning gun owners about H.R. 127.

Declaring the Second Amendment “does not give Americans a right, it protects a pre-existing right and that right shall not be infringed,” Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs essentially set the tone of opposition to H.R. 8—a bill mandating so-called “universal background checks”—during a one-hour floor debate in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Opponents led by Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan repeatedly attacked the bill as a danger to individuals and the Second Amendment. Introduced by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), H.R. 8 has 210 co-sponsors, only three of whom are Republicans. This allows Democrats to declare the measure to be bipartisan and in the end, the vote found eight Republicans voting for the measure and one Democrat voting against it.

Perhaps not surprisingly, as the House was taking up the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” and H.R.1446, the “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021,” a look at leading stories on gun control revealed the “big push” is on, with gun prohibitionists declaring the background check legislation to be the proverbial “first step in comprehensive action.”

But the debate over H.R. 8 revealed the stark divide that exists between pro-rights Republicans and anti-gun Democrats.

Asserting that “more than 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) insisted H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 “will keep guns out of the hands of those who aren’t allowed to have them in the first place.”

Countering that argument, Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) argued H.R. 8 will not accomplish what supporters claim.

“We all know that, by definition, criminals don’t abide by the law,” he stated. “This bill will not make our communities safer. In fact, what it will do is cause law-abiding citizens to lose more of their Second Amendment rights.”

California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell supported H.R. 8 along with fellow Democrats. (Screen snip, C-SPAN)

Liberal Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell of California insisted H.R. 8 “takes the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told his colleagues, “We are told yet again that this will save lives, and yet, there is not one single mass killing that’s been brought up here today that would have been prevented by this bill.”

A former judge, Gohmert recalled his time on the bench.

“I think we had thousands of cases, felony cases that came through my court,” he said. “Over and over you hear the criminals, they’re not obeying the law. They’re not going to follow the law. They got their guns illegally. This will not change at all any of those people we tried and convicted for getting guns. They steal them. They buy them from other people that stole them. They don’t obey the law. That’s why they are criminals.”

Perennial anti-gun Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) apparently didn’t listen to such details, insisting that background checks “take 90 seconds; 90 seconds to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands, 90 seconds to prevent more of our loved ones from being killed by gun violence.”

Jayapal professed pride in the voters of Washington State who “have consistently tackled gun violence with commonsense reforms, passing one of the first, most comprehensive background check laws in 2014 and raising the legal age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle to 21 in 2018.”

She failed to mention how the 2014 background check law didn’t prevent a triple slaying at a teen party in Mukilteo in 2016 by a young man who passed a background check. Nor did Jayapal acknowledge how the number of murders in Seattle—the state’s most populous city and home to a billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group—soared last year by more than 50 percent.

Jayapal’s apparent oblivion to how criminals get firearms was repeatedly refuted during statements before and after she spoke.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) testified, “A ten-year study by Johns Hopkins and U.C.-Davis concluded that California’s background check law had no effect on gun homicides or suicides. None. The purpose of this bill is not public safety…Its purpose is to make gun ownership so legally hazardous, too fraught with booby traps that no law-abiding citizen would want to take the risk.”

Texas Rep. Chip Roy (Screen snip, C-SPAN)

Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) asserted, “My Democratic colleagues after opening up our borders want to take away our God-given rights to defend ourselves under the Second Amendment. That’s what this is about. This is about creating a gun registry that track guns of the American people. There is no way to implement what the Democrats are trying to implement without doing that…We have a God-given right to defend our families against tyranny and do it regardless of what this Democratic Congress tries to jam through.”

And feisty freshman Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) came out swinging: “Talk about women’s rights; don’t take away my right to protect myself. I mean, seriously, what are we doing here? I ask supporters of this legislation, who do you think you are to disarm Americans and leave them vulnerable without help?

“You want to defund our police and yet leave us without a way to protect ourselves. Our founding fathers gave us a list of items and said ‘Don’t touch these things.’ And I’m telling you, keep your hands off of our Second Amendment.”

The chair scolded Boebert for directing her comments at House members rather than the chair.

The floor debate unfolded against the backdrop of what might seem like a concerted effort to make gun control the front-burner issue of the day. In an editorial calling for more Second Amendment restrictions, the Chicago Sun Times bemoaned loose gun laws in neighboring states “contribute to the flood of gun son the streets of Chicago,” and the surge of “gun violence” in the Windy City.

“Last year,” the editorial states, “gun violence increased by 52% in Chicago, and 65% more women were killed in acts of gun violence. Domestic violence increased by 16% in Illinois, and the risk of homicide in domestic violence incidents is five times higher when a gun is present.”

In the Seattle-based Crosscut online magazine, an Op-Ed calling for passage of state-level gun control laws, “Collectively, the proposed legislation seeks to modestly reign in gun violence. Senate Bill 5078 would ban “high-capacity magazines”; SB 5038 would ban “open carry” of weapons at demonstrations and the state Capitol; SB 5217 would ban “assault weapons.”

However, the magazine ban legislation appears to have died in the Senate, and an effort to ban “assault weapons” also failed to pass before a legislative deadline.

Back in “the other Washington,” Georgia Congresswoman Lucy McBath was looking forward to pushing H.R. 8 and other gun control measures, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. McBath lost a son in a shooting incident eight years ago.

“It’s not going to be easy, but I truly believe that now is the time,” McBath said. “And the country is really, really ripe. I cannot tell you how many people every week I’m talking to that are anxiously waiting for us to pass legislation. They are tired; they are afraid.”

She reiterated that position during the House debate, stating, “Our vote today is (a) beginning and it’s definitely not the end.”

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) concurred, but hardly in the same sense.

“H.R. 8 is an assault on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” she stated. “This bill is just the first of many steps to take away our Second Amendment rights.”

RELATED:

House Dems Launch Full Court Press on Background Checks



About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stripeseven
Stripeseven
30 days ago

These Oath breaking elected servants are only concerned with one thing. To undermine our Constitutional form of government so they can Implement a Regime of Unchecked, Unlimited Power in their pursuit to destroy America and our way of life as we know it. No other conclusion exists. None….

toomanyhobbies
toomanyhobbies
1 month ago

in an outright attempt to criminalize every law abiding gun owner in the US.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago

ENFORCERS are the problem. People willing to sell their souls for a paycheck and pension. We need to do to the ENFORCERS what the COLONISTS did to King George’s enforcers. AIM SMALL MISS SMALL. Without ENFORCERS polytickshuns are IMPOTENT. Check out: thickredline.org As for the rest… I have posted this here and will do so again… There is a reason that “they” don’t listen to the people anymore. There is a reason they ignore the provisions of the 2nd amendment. The reason is that the lynch pins to the Constitution were removed in 1903 & 1913. In 1903 the blatantly UNconstitional… Read more »

Cruiser
Cruiser
1 month ago

And so it goes, they put up a wall around the Kremlin Capital, now disarm the populace, and their Communist plan is complete, the end of America.

molon__52285_1392307553.png
musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Cruiser

NEVER!

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago

Gee, 8 republican turn coats. Should have printed their names so we know who the rino’s are and not to vote for them since we can’t trust the NRA web site anymore.

Last edited 1 month ago by musicman44mag
Big George
Big George
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Ask and Ye shall receive!
https://populist.press/gun-control-bill-passes-here-are-the-8-traitors-who-voted-with-democrats/
Everyone should subscribe to this site for current info!

Get Out
Get Out
1 month ago

The run on guns, ammo, components and anything gun related will jump into hyperspace mode now. People will be purchasing firearms ahead of the UBC even faster now. The anti-gun politicians and their supporters will be responsible for millions more guns, ammo, components and anything gun related being bought due to their gun control schemes, buffoons will never learn.

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
1 month ago

I can’t see how they can enforce it. And many States are now passing “2nd. Amendment Sanctuary” resolutions or laws where the will refuse to assist in the enforcemnet of any past, present or future Federal gun laws.
Nullification. If the Feds want to enforce the gun Laws, it’s up to them and them only.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

Unfortunately, there are many non-federal government employees who will enforce the new gun laws through a variety of mechanisms.

Last edited 1 month ago by JSNMGC
Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

the same laws and principles that prevent state and local law enfrocement from enforcig immigraionlaws SHOULD prevent those same officers from enforcing federal gun ban laws. Will they? Only time will tell. How many states will now enact laws preventing any entity not federal within their states enforcing these rotten anti-constitutional laws? Some states have already enacted such laws. Good for them

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Tionico

I agree that 2nd Amendment Preservation laws at the state level are a good idea.

Even in those states, it is probable that non-federal government employees will participate in the enforcement of the new laws. There are mechanisms that will be used to work around the laws.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

We can also VOTE NOT GUILTY on juries where someone has been charged with some NON CRIME with NO VICTIM. FIJA.ORG

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

CL- yes we ‘could’ render a not guilty vote – IF we managed to get on a jury for a ‘gun crime’ case – especially one dealing with a ‘process’ crime (think bump stocks) but most of us would never make it onto that jury. Sir – are you a member of the SAF (or GOA or any other pro 2A group) – an affirmative response would get you dismissed as a juror. The same question applied to a hoplophobe would likely get approval by the persecution oops prosecution.

Boz
Boz
1 month ago

ANY so-called “gun control” is NEVER about stopping crime, saving lives, for the children, etc. It is ALWAYS about disarming the American Citizen! Remember that and act accordingly.

KDad
KDad
1 month ago

I think we all now see why the fence and National Guard troops remain around the Capitol! Pelosi and her crew of Socialist/Communist anti-Constitution pukes may be worried that their illegal laws may spark a bloody revolution!!

JohnnieBo77
JohnnieBo77
1 month ago
Reply to  KDad

@KDad… That is EXACTLY why. They know that what they are doing is precisely what the 2nd amendment was enshrined to protect against. Considering the political capital they’ve garnered over what happened on January 6th (hardly an insurrection and more-so a frat party gone bad), they are poking and prodding in the hopes of a response bigger than that on January 6th to further justify even more draconian action and paint us all as the “terrorists” they refuse to label Antifa and BLM as. The only time a government official should know what firearm(s) we own is when they are… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  JohnnieBo77

^^^^^^^SCREAM IT FROM THE HOUSETOPS!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  KDad

May be worried?

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

mm44- if they ain’t worried yet – they certainly should be/ As the old saying goes – when the ‘authorities’ (king, emperor or a ‘supposedly’ freely elected gummint) try to disarm their serfs i mean slaves er um deplorables, it is because they plan on doing something to those people that would likely get them shot – or at least run out of town at gunpoint. (yep, I took a few liberties with that saying).

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  KDad

Yes, but the fools don’t realize that many of those troops will turn against them. Just like they did in other situations in other countries. Romania comes to mind…

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

CL – why do you think that they applied the ‘purity’ test to them? They have to have absolute control over their military minions. They certainly don’t trust anyone that they cannot control. I still believe that the vast majority of our military folks WILL retain loyalty to their oath of enlistment/commissioning and refuse to obey unlawful/illegal orders – especially from anyone they deem as illegally holding office.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 month ago

The vote count in the house shows me that there are 227 representatives that need to be replaced with lucid thinking members.
Do these idiots not understand the constitution and bill of rights, also making it harder for law abiding people to exercise their rights will not change the amount of criminal acts done by criminals.
If you voted democrat you are part of the problem.

JohnnieBo77
JohnnieBo77
1 month ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

They understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights perfectly well. They simply don’t care about them and it’s why they circumvent them at every turn when they’re not outright steamrolling it.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Workman

Dave – perhaps, but we have to get there first. Never mind that if HR1 passes thru the senate and slow joe signs it into law – we likely won’t even be allowed to hold any sort of election, much anything resembling a fair one. I will gladly be proved wrong if that doesn’t happen but I am not a bit optimistic.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

Liberal Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell of California insisted H.R. 8 “takes the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”

He means THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Riverwolf
Riverwolf
1 month ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

You could not be more right. There is an old saying that I cannot remember well enough to quote right now but the gist of it is: You should never fear another man’s guns unless you have done something to him to require it. The total essence of why the Democrats want to disarm the American people so badly.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  Riverwolf

Unfortunately there are a multitude of people out there that possess firearms and are not mentally well. “Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.” That is still sound advice.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

Well – we are not Chinese spies who are sleeping with him.. After all, those are the only people he trusts.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Swalwell is a typical demoncrat, the only thing he does with people is use them.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

That’s right and remember this ass wanted to nuke gun owners that would not give up their AR/AK. They say it, they get back lash and then it was all about the joke. The joke really is that they are lying when they said it was a joke. They say what the mean the first time and it is called a Freidan slip.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

mm – Freudian (but we knew what ya meant 😉
What you need to remember is that virtually every time they open their pie (fang?) hole there are always elements of what they really mean. Look at ALL of their comments and you will likely be able to figure out their end games.

SK
SK
1 month ago

These totalitarians have no idea what they are about to unleash.

Montana454Casull
Montana454Casull
1 month ago

I do not recognize Biden as our president as the election was nothing but a fraudulent joke . I also do not recognize any unconstitutional gun laws these clowns pass . These idiots can pass what they want , the constitution says ” Shall not be Infringed ” I am going with that and the clowns in DC can eat shit !

ChootEm
ChootEm
1 month ago

What these dolts fail to recognize is that you cannot legislate the evil that exists in someone’s mind.

nrringlee
nrringlee
1 month ago
Reply to  ChootEm

Progressives and leftists focus in the implement because they lack the ability to address the intent. When you rip the foundation of morality out of a culture attempts to replace self discipline and self restraint with statutes will fail at every turn. And that is exactly what is going on here. New Left Progressive ideology and policy have displaced traditional values of hard work, faith and family with impulse, greed and lack of respect for life. The culture of Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out has morphed in to a drug propelled cult of self absorbed hedonists. You cannot… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  ChootEm

These laws have nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to reduce criminal behavior. They are not dolts.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

They want us disarmed so that they can do whatever they want to us just like they have done in every other place on the planet they disarmed the people. Well,what if we DISARM THEM? Get the enforcers on OUR side for once.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

I agree and would like see more than just a couple of the many, many LEO/Ex-LEO and Military/Veteran posters here say something similar.

Hazcat
Hazcat
1 month ago

8 ‘Republicans’ joined in so rest assured that this WILL be passed by the Senate.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago
Reply to  Hazcat

Boo!!!!!

Jaque
Jaque
1 month ago

The Biden Communists must be convinced Americans will never surrender their Arms and freedoms to any government entity. Once they take our arms they take our freedom.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  Jaque

They’ve been taking our freedom since before we were born bit by bit. They just want the REST of it. Screw them. Lead is going to be flying SOON!

Docduracoat
Docduracoat
1 month ago

These laws have nothing to do with crime or mass shootings.
We shouldn’t even debate them on these points.
These are part of the long plan to completely just on the citizens of the United States.
Because you can only truly oppress disarmed subjects.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  Docduracoat

No, it’s no theory. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said in the Gulag Archipelago that the first thing the government did was make crimes against the people of no effect and any crime against the government a capital offense. (para) The people clamour for more laws as the criminals that the government releases prey on them.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago
Reply to  Docduracoat

PS – while they ‘may’ not have directly ‘ordered’ all of the riots er um ‘mostly’ peaceful demonstrations – which are still happening BTW, they really didn’t have to. There enough to their ‘faithful’ that are so thoroughly indoctrinated they can and will act on their own. Look at some of their other historical acts, no direct orders were given but the end result was/is the same. As to sheep – I still have a poster I acquired back in the dark ages when I was teaching Sunday School – it shows a lamb in a Hawaiian shirt in the… Read more »

tetejaun
tetejaun
1 month ago

Your lack of knowledge of where our GOD-GIVEN Rights come from cements the fact that you are a coward communist democrat. From the Code of Hammurabi to the Magna Carta to our Constitution, Rights pre-exist any tin pot tyrant.
Vlad Lenin loved useful idiots like you.

It is to laugh.

Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago
Reply to  tetejaun

yur post made me go back and carefully re-read HIS post. Id suggest you go and do likewise. He clearly states that that Second does not grant us any rights, it protects a pre-existing and pre-political right that can NOT be taken away, modified, abdicated, tossed, denied, or changed.

How does this make of him the idiot you claim Lenin loved?

Dasher_Dork
Dasher_Dork
1 month ago

I’m all for guns laws…as long as the federal government is subject to those same laws. No exceptions…I can’t have it, they can’t either! Maybe its time for another visit to the capital?

tetejaun
tetejaun
1 month ago
Reply to  Dasher_Dork

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and… Read more »

JohnnieBo77
JohnnieBo77
1 month ago
Reply to  tetejaun

Always interesting that whenever that quote by Jefferson is referenced, it is only the final part that is referenced. Perhaps because it is easier to remember just the last part – or worse…

Everything that precedes it is an exact description of those who only quote the latter because they’re afraid to see themselves when quoting the former.

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
1 month ago
Reply to  Dasher_Dork

DD,

Funny, I’m on the other side of that argument. I’m against ALL gun laws except the ones limiting the government.

Dasher_Dork
Dasher_Dork
1 month ago

Dave, I hate guns laws…my theory is that if the government had to follow the laws they impose, there wouldn’t be any laws. I haven’t found a gun law yet that the government hasn’t exempted themselves from…

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
1 month ago
Reply to  Dasher_Dork

DD,

Yabut, I don’t care if they’re willing to abide by the same laws. I’m not.

Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago

I’m content to always and everywhere abide by the Supreme Law of the Land.

It would appear most of them are not.

I suppose, further, that whether the first sentence binds or the second is up to us. And they are trying to remove the surest way of making certain we will win.