UBC Bills set for vote

K

kmw1954

New member
Was just reading that today, 2/27/19 there are two Universal Background Check Bills set to be voted on in the US House. I have already emailed my congressman that I oppose these Bills and would like him to vote against them.

How I need to find out how to see how they voted on this. From the little bit that I have found these look like horrible Bills.
 
H.R. 8, the Universal Background Check bill, has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Here are the 8 Republicans that voted with the Democrats to pass this unconstitutional legislation:

Vern Buchanan (FL)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
Will Hurd (TX)
Peter King (NY)
Brian Mast (FL)
Christopher Smith (NJ)
Fred Upton (MI)
 
I’ll ask the legal reps here in this forum. Do attorneys feel this is ‘unconstitutional’ and if so, why. Considering all states now require back ground checks, how is ‘universal’ unconstitutional?
No, I’m not advocating anything, pro or con. I’m asking a legal interpretation.
 
USNRet93 said:
Do attorneys feel this is ‘unconstitutional’ and if so, why. Considering all states now require back ground checks, how is ‘universal’ unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Not all states require background checks. Ohio doesn't.

The argument against the constitutionality, aside from it being a direct and impermissible burden on a constitutional right, is that a UBC is a regulation of categorically intrastate commerce.

That it's a poor idea does not itself make it unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Interesting for sure. Now to watch were it goes in the Senate.

I can understand how those folks in FLA could be under the gun on this issue after that horrific school shooting. Though I fail to see how this could have prevented it.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Here is the link to see how your representative voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll099.xml

Not even a majority of states require background checks.
Click to expand...
In order to purchase a gun from a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL), a consumer must provide identification and pass a federal background check using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' 4473 form.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have said from a FFL..isn't that the case in all states?
Interesting for sure. Now to watch were it goes in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Last I saw, McConnell won't even let it out of committee...so....
 
I guess I should have said from a FFL..isn't that the case in all states?
Click to expand...

So what exactly are you asking?

I’ll just send you a link to Printz v. United States now. The original Brady Act background checks being found unconstitutional on non-Second Amendment grounds is one reason we now have NICS. The Feds ability to dictate the use of NICS by FFLs rests heavily on the Interstate Commerce Clause as well (see also United States v. Lopez (Gun free school zones act of 1990 struck down as beyond federal power)).

If you are asking if H.R. 8 is constitutional, the answer is “I don’t know because I’m not in the habit of doing extensive legal research on showboat bills that aren’t going to become law.”
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
So what exactly are you asking?

I’ll just send you a link to Printz v. United States now. The original Brady Act background checks being found unconstitutional on non-Second Amendment grounds is one reason we now have NICS. The Feds ability to dictate the use of NICS by FFLs rests heavily on the Interstate Commerce Clause as well (see also United States v. Lopez (Gun free school zones act of 1990 struck down as beyond federal power)).

If you are asking if H.R. 8 is constitutional, the answer is “I don’t know because I’m not in the habit of doing extensive legal research on showboat bills that aren’t going to become law.”
Click to expand...
Thanks, I guess...
 
zukiphile wrote: The argument against the constitutionality, aside from it being a direct and impermissible burden on a constitutional right, is that a UBC is a regulation of categorically intrastate commerce.
Click to expand...
I'm only seeing this idea (emphasis mine) for the first time. What type of entity would likely have standing to bring suit as a matter pertaining to the intrastate commerce clause? Would it have to be a business?
 
USNRet93 said:
Considering all states now require back ground checks, how is ‘universal’ unconstitutional?
…
I guess I should have said from a FFL..isn't that the case in all states?
Click to expand...

The regulation of FFL is a federal matter, since they are federal licensees. It is not a state matter.

UBCs as proposed are required in all transactions between non-licensees.
 
OPC said:
I'm only seeing this idea (emphasis mine) for the first time. What type of entity would likely have standing to bring suit as a matter pertaining to the intrastate commerce clause? Would it have to be a business?
Click to expand...

Anyone engaged in commerce, i.e. selling or buying, not just a business.

Standing isn't the hard part. The problem is that the commerce clause was stretched out of shape quite badly during and after FDR's presidency, and the tests for its use as a basis for congressional authority are so broad that all justices except Thomas upheld a federal prosecution of a fellow who was growing marijuana for his own use within one state (no commerce and entirely intrastate).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top