House Judiciary Committe Rejects H.R. 8 Amendment

Just a heads-up: most websites are claiming the data would only be reported to ICE, as if this were about illegal aliens. In fact, Steube's amendment would have required the reporting of any failed background check to law enforcement, though it was unclear which agency, since the FBI would already be aware of the failure.

It looks like this is the one they'll be sending the Senate. It has 231 cosponsors, so it's time to get on the horn to our representatives. The easiest way is by signing up on Popvox, which will direct your email to the relevant officials.
 
It makes no sense that ICE would not be informed if an illegal alien tried to buy a gun illegally. I doubt they were trying to buy one for recreational shooting. Sounds like the democrats are putting illegal aliens above the safety of law abiding citizens including school children. Their UBC program is a total sham and needs to be exposed as such. How can they be surprised that the vast majority of firearm owners that value their Second Amendment Rights do not trust their motives.
 
Last edited:
USNRet93 said:
Cruz, death penalty. Roof, same. Holmes, life w/o parole. Probably more. Most who do big events, don't survive.
Click to expand...
Those are isolated, large-scale events that had viral news coverage. How about the myriad gun crimes that are committed every day, all across the country, that don't make the six o'clock news on all the major networks?

For example, the Aurora, Illinois, shooter. Yes, the event made the national news, because it was a "mass shooting" and thus fits the narrative. But the shooter was a convicted felon, yet the State of Illinois gave him a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card, and then gave him a pass on a background check when he purchased the handgun used in the shooting. Yet Illinois is one of the least gun-friendly states in the country. What happened? And why would the House Judiciary Committee oppose a provision that might (or might not) help to close that particular "loophole"?
 
USNret93 said:
Cruz, death penalty. Roof, same. Holmes, life w/o parole. Probably more. Most who do big events, don't survive.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the gangbangers and other criminals who get caught illegally carrying and trafficking firearms. Consider:
Mount Prospect woman gets probation for illegal gun sales
A Mount Prospect woman pleaded guilty to selling guns illegally and was sentenced to probation.

Simone Mousheh, 23, pleaded guilty Thursday to the illegal transfer of firearms in exchange for 12 months probation and 15 days in the Cook County sheriff's work alternative program, according to court records. S.W.A.P. allows judges to sentence nonviolent offenders to manual labor in lieu of jail time.

She was also ordered to pay $679 in fines.

According to published reports, Mousheh purchased a .40-caliber gun legally then reported it stolen. Police recovered the gun from a Chicago juvenile.

During a six-month period, authorities said, Mousheh purchased four weapons for $600 each and sold two to a Hoffman Estates man with Chicago gang ties.
Click to expand...
But the Democrats here consistently reject longer mandatory sentences for such people on the grounds that it "disproportionately affects minority communities". But they love to pass more gun laws they'll refuse to properly enforce.
 
This should outrage everyone about the super lax prosecution of violent repeat offenders in Cook County Illinois where Chicago is located. This is the real problem with Chicago's gang violence, and not the guns. Universal Background Checks will have zero impact on this and you never hear about it in the MSM.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/john-boch/crime-illinois-catch-release-justice-system/

Moderator Edit: Long Quote Deleted. Word-for-word copying of an article is a copyright violation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
USNRet93 said:
Cruz, death penalty. Roof, same. Holmes, life w/o parole. Probably more. Most who do big events, don't survive.
Click to expand...

The guys doing big events are an aberration. It is the guys like the pair that I was just reviewing for a legal study - multiple convictions for aggressive violent crimes, multiple convictions for felon in possession and unlawful carry. These guys were not out of circulation more than a year and a half during an eight year period. They are currently looking at aggravated robbery charges that were only stopped from being murder charges by the Raven .25 failing to fire after the first two shots.

And this was in Texas, which is supposed to have a reputation for being tough on crime.
 
The guys doing big events are an aberration. It is the guys like the pair that I was just reviewing for a legal study - multiple convictions for aggressive violent crimes, multiple convictions for felon in possession and unlawful carry. These guys were not out of circulation more than a year and a half during an eight year period. They are currently looking at aggravated robbery charges that were only stopped from being murder charges by the Raven .25 failing to fire after the first two shots.
Click to expand...

Sadly this is the norm. I have made cases on individuals who are less than 30, been convicted of 5+ felonies, and never did more than a year or two in prison. It’s not uncommon at all.

I recently attended a sentencing hearing for a case of mine. The case that was sentenced before mine had been convicted of the same crime (manufacturing meth). My defendant has never done anything other than be a menace to society, at one point in the past fracturing his sons skull during a domestic assault. The defendant in the case before was a Marine war veteran who just ran off the rails a few years after he got out. He never had committed any violent crime and He also was a former volunteer firefighter, and otherwise did a lot of good in the community. Through quirks of the law and structured sentencing, the former firefighter/marine veteran was sentenced to double the prison time as my piece of crap defendant just because he had a previous meth possession conviction. Whereas my little terds violent past did not factor as much in sentencing because the crimes weren’t related to his latest conviction.

The law is often asinine and inadequate. But I will say, the legal code is probably written to be as fair as possible in most circumstances. It’s just the quirky incidents that make us scratch our heads.
 
Armed_Chicagoan said:
I'm talking about the gangbangers and other criminals who get caught illegally carrying and trafficking firearms. Consider:
Mount Prospect woman gets probation for illegal gun sales

But the Democrats here consistently reject longer mandatory sentences for such people on the grounds that it "disproportionately affects minority communities". But they love to pass more gun laws they'll refuse to properly enforce.
Click to expand...
Well that's because "disproportionately minorities commit most of the firearm related crimes".
 
5Whiskey said:
Sadly this is the norm. I have made cases on individuals who are less than 30, been convicted of 5+ felonies, and never did more than a year or two in prison. It’s not uncommon at all.
Click to expand...

Is that because his prior felonies weren't violent and the sentences were short, or he is released early in order to keep worse people in?

As one who stands almost entirely outside the criminal system, I don't always see the logic of what is or isn't a felony or who serves a sentence of more than one year.

A fellow who was a handy man at a client's property served more than a year for being found in a car with his underaged girlfriend. When he got out they married and had children, and because he couldn't read, she took him for everything. So, he is a felon who hasn't stolen anything or killed anyone. On the other hand, I see cases come before municipal courts for real domestic violence (what we used to call "wife beating"), and those are all misdemeanors.

To an outsider, the underlying logic of these things isn't always obvious.
 
Is that because his prior felonies weren't violent and the sentences were short, or he is released early in order to keep worse people in?
Click to expand...

It's a combination of several things. While I cede that we cannot imprison everyone, I'm not even talking about particularly peaceful felons. I'm talking about gun/drug/robbery/assault/B&E offenders. The main reason in my state is our habitual felon guidelines. Courts are overworked, and it's common with a defendant with competent counsel to push his trial date out 2 or more years. In that time, the defendant has accumulated 2 or 3 additional felony charges which are also pending. When the defendant is finally forced to a trial by the prosecutor, they often take a plea deal on all of the offenses... often receiving probation or a very short sentence. And for the purpose of habitual felon, pleading guilty or being found guilty on all offenses only counts as 1 felony conviction (multiple same-day same-court convictions count as 1 per habitual felon law).

There have been gang shootings where the victims were scared to testify (or not very "good" victims in that they were shot because of a previous encounter), so the prosecutor is almost forced to take a plea for the lowest level felony charged with a short probation stint. If they can even get that in some cases.

A fellow who was a handy man at a client's property served more than a year for being found in a car with his underaged girlfriend. When he got out they married and had children, and because he couldn't read, she took him for everything. So, he is a felon who hasn't stolen anything or killed anyone. On the other hand, I see cases come before municipal courts for real domestic violence (what we used to call "wife beating"), and those are all misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

And this happens too. I'm quite sympathetic to this, however. It's not just statutory cases, heck larceny of pine straw is a felony in my state. Seriously... raking pine straw on property not yours without permission could be prosecuted as a felony. I've never seen it actually charged or prosecuted, but it's a law on the books. Meanwhile, some quite violent assaults per my state law are still misdemeanors... even if the victim needs immediate medical assistance. Depending on how the assault was committed, the tools used, etc.

To an outsider, the underlying logic of these things isn't always obvious.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the only logic in it is the examination in the inefficiency of government and laws. Most criminal laws and procedural statutes were piecemealed together over many years, and some portions of the law are barely compatible with others. And the result is often unfair sentencing schemes.
 
Last edited:
If you are taking about criminal code issues, then you also have states like MA where "misdemeanors" by both common sense and letter of the law carry 2.5 year sentences, yet have never resulted in anyone doing a day in jail - precluding some from gun ownership for life on a 1st time dwi, soliciting a prostitute, and other petty crimes.

Back to the OP topic, I believe most NICs denials are probably errors by the people running it or records. There is some evidence of this found in the occasional ATF collection of guns after a default proceed is returned as a denial. I'd love to see them vigorously attempt to prosecute denials as it would force courts to recognize such problems in the system, ie today you can deny someone a gun and make them jump through hoops for months to restore a right never lost, but you sure as hell cant take their property no-less prosecute them without it being an issue subject to due process.

To add to that, one big problem in the background check system I wish they would fix along with any bill on it, is the lack of due process requirements for appeals. There have been attempts at such that never passed, ie to provide time frames for FBI response on denial reasons and to allow litigation in local federal courts to seek relief - very fair but obviously met with resistance for some foul reasons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top