Actually, HR 93 is pretty troubling.
It shall be unlawful for a person who has been notified by the Attorney General that the Attorney General has made a determination to revoke a license issued to the person under this chapter to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms, or to deny an application of the person to renew such a license, to--
`(i) transfer a business inventory firearm of the person--
`(I) into a personal collection of the person; or
`(II) to an employee of the person, or to an individual described in section 923(d)(1)(B) with respect to the person; or
`(ii) receive a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the date the person received the notice.
So, what happens to the guns the dealer
paid for and legally owns?
FFL's can be revoked for many reasons, not all being acts of malfeasance. Likewise, a denial could be a result of paperwork simply being submitted improperly.
This one's vindictive, and it doesn't really serve any utility to the general public.
HR 34 is the Blair Holt act, that Rep. Rush introduces every year. Notice the lack of cosponsors. HR 117 also lacks any support.
(Rush went AWOL from the Army in 1968, and he went on to found the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers, who kicked him out within a year. In 1969, he was jailed on weapons charges.)
As far as HR 65, I'm a bit confused. Lee wants to append something about "semiautomatic assault weapons" to 922, but that term doesn't appear anywhere, and she fails to define what an "assault weapon" is. So, um...yeah. Also, no cosponsors.