My email to my Congressman on H.R. 8 and 1446

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wiscoaster

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
3,634
Location
Nowhere
I ask for your opposition to these bills that I understand have been scheduled for floor vote:

H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021
H.R.1446 - Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021

I have no problem with requiring a firearm to be transferred only to a transferee lawfully permitted to have such a firearm. However, neither of these bills are the best way to effect this requirement. Both make the transfer potentially burdensome to the parties lawfully involved, thereby infringing upon their Second Amendment rights. Neither do anything more to prevent unlawful transfers than current law.

There is an easier and better way to accomplish the same goals: just open up the NICS background check system to all persons and require the transferor of a firearm to run a background check on the transferee and also require the transferee to run a background check upon the transferor, and require each to retain a copy of the background check result. There is absolutely no need for the requirement of a licensed dealer to intermediate in all such transactions.
 
Here's a link that you can use to look at all the proposed Anti bills submitted recently.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-post-any-and-all-known-anti-activity.771727/
It can help you formulate emails and letters to your Congresscritters (No, we don't need to hear that your Congresscriter is a lost cause. You have our sympathy, but not our forbearance to complain).

Remember Congresscritters count individual communications as representing multiple potential voters and if you give them a dozen bills you're opposed to on one letter they'll just count it as once, but if you send a dozen letters (one for each bit of insanity) they'll count each one. It might be worth the inconvenience (and stamps).
 
Last edited:
H.R. 8 is universal background checks.

H.R. 1446 would give the FBI 10 business days to complete a background check instead of 3, and if the FFL doesn't hear back from them, the would-be purchaser has to petition the FBI requesting a paper determination which they have to provide within an additional 10 business days. A right delayed is a right denied. Imagine a domestic abuse victim having to wait a month to obtain a defensive weapon!

links:
H.R. 8: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text?q={"search":["H.R.+8"]}&r=1&s=2

H.R. 1446: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1446/text?q={"search":["firearms"]}&r=2&s=1

if you don't know who your congresscritter is: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
 
In case anyone is interested, here is what I wrote to my representative. While I believe he is an anti, he needs to know that his constituents don't share that POV.

Dear Representative _____,

I am writing about H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, which I understand will be voted on tomorrow. These bills are very important to me, so as your constituent I felt you would want to know my opinion.

H.R. 8 proposes "universal" background checks, i.e. in addition to all sales made by dealers and all private sales over state lines, now private sales within state lines would be required to go through an FFL. I understand that the motivation is to avoid sales to prohibited persons and agree that keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons is important. Going through an FFL makes sense for interstate sales since the firearm usually has to be shipped, and it's also more likely that the parties are not personal acquaintances.

More than 20 states, of which Arizona is one, do not require a background check of a buyer holding a valid concealed carry permit. The extensive vetting for the permit serves as the background check. Why should Arizona permit holders have to go through a separate background check for a private purchase? The seller could just scan the buyer's carry permit and retain a copy. This practice is in fact followed by the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners when engaging in private sales, precisely to avoid selling to a prohibited person.

H.R. 1446 increases the time limit for the FBI to respond to a background check request to 10 business days, and instead of allowing the would-be buyer to complete the purchase if no timely response is received, requires the buyer to petition the FBI for a response, for which the FBI gets another 10 business days. This ends up being a whole month. A right delayed is a right denied, what happens to a domestic violence victim who urgently needs a defensive weapon for protection?

I believe this idea came out of the Charleston church shooting tragedy. But the actual problem there was an error in identifying the applicable jurisdiction. Another case of a prohibited person wrongly being allowed to buy firearms was the Sutherland Springs shooter -- the Air Force (!) failed to submit his history of domestic violence to the NICS database. A better solution to prohibited persons erroneously "passing" background checks would be to penalize reporting entities for failing to promptly and correctly submit applicable information to the NICS database, to avoid such tragedies.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and for your service as a Congressional Representative.

Sincerely,​
 
Millamber457 said:
can i copy and paste that , it's better than i can right it
Click to expand...
Is PA one of the states that uses the carry permit for the background check? If so, keep the same language and just substitute Pennsylvania for Arizona. If not, just say "more than 20 states" and leave out "of which (state name) is one", and in the next sentence say "permit holders in those states" instead of "Arizona permit holders".
 
old lady new shooter said:
Is PA one of the states that uses the carry permit for the background check? If so, keep the same language and just substitute Pennsylvania for Arizona. If not, just say "more than 20 states" and leave out "of which (state name) is one", and in the next sentence say "permit holders in those states" instead of "Arizona permit holders".
Click to expand...
 
Given the makeup of the House, stopping these bills from passing the House was a long shot.
The Senate is 50/50, literally. Although the Democratic members usually vote in lockstep, each is responsible to their voting constituents. I encourage all to let your senator know your preference. I just used the OP's language, slightly modified for my state and the current status, to both my senators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hso
hso said:
The more diplomatic and the more we follow the letters to Congresscritter guidance ....
Click to expand...
I think that the text of old lady's letter is the perfect template for a typed, signed and mailed letter. However, IMO an email is more likely to be read if its text is brief and directly to the point, preferably not more than two paragraphs. I do prefer to send emails because I can use the legislator's "contact" page on the Congress website.
 
I think the way it works in the office of my @#$% congresscritter is that an algorithm decides whether the sender is for or against the legislation being written about, and then generates a form letter. The response I got did not address any of my substantive points.
 
old lady new shooter said:
... an algorithm decides whether the sender is for or against the legislation being written about, and then generates a form letter. The response I got did not address any of my substantive points.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that as well, with one exception: my state Assembly rep from the last session always responded with a genuine one-off letter addressing my points. Some of her letters were two pages of single-spaced!! Unfortunately she chose to run for the state Senate and didn't make it.
 
wiscoaster said:
I've noticed that as well, with one exception: my state Assembly rep from the last session always responded with a genuine one-off letter addressing my points. Some of her letters were two pages of single-spaced!! Unfortunately she chose to run for the state Senate and didn't make it.
Click to expand...
In general I think the closer the legislator to the constituents, the more likely they actually pay attention. So state more than federal, and probably something like City Council more than state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Text of H.R.21: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013
Replies
6
Views
574
coloradokevin
coloradokevin
J
  • Locked
Text of H.R.137 Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013
Replies
3
Views
501
Bubba613
B
meesterdon
  • Locked
Maine ballot question 3
Replies
0
Views
753
meesterdon
meesterdon
hso
  • Locked
FYI - Maryland Private Transfer Ban
Replies
0
Views
434
hso
hso
J
  • Locked
Are we supposed to believe the NRA supports this? (HR21)
Replies
7
Views
662
george d dennis
G
Back
Top