Does severability apply to the new Federal gun law?

[HankB]

Biden just signed a new gun law known as the "Bipartisan Safer Communities Act" which was passed with the votes of various GOP senators including my own senator John Cornyn. So it's now law, and addresses things like mental health, enhanced background checks, red flag laws in the states, etc.

There are several different provisions in this law.

IANAL, but I remember reading that some laws are written in a way that if one provision is thrown out by a court, the entire law is voided. Other laws can have some provisions stricken without affecting the rest of the law. I understand this is called "severability."

Where does this latest bill fall in this regard?

 

[jrmiddleton425]

I didn't find a severability clause. If in fact there isn't one, all that means is that it's up a judge whether or not they will strike down the whole thing, or allow parts of the law to remain in effect.

 

[Spats McGee]

I didn't have time to dig through it clause by clause, but I ran a couple of word searches. I did not find a severability clause. If it's not there, @jrmiddleton425 is absolutely right. It'll be up to a judge to determine severability.

 

[HankB]

Thank you both for your answers, although it wasn't what I was hoping to hear - which is that our "friends" in the GOP might have been smart enough to put in something that would invalidate the entire law if one part of it was stricken, but no such luck. (I was really hoping that the GOP might have attached the Hearing PROTECTION Act to this gun "safety" law but that was the very longest of long shots.)

 

[CapnMac]

might have been smart enough to put in something that would invalidate the entire law if one part of it was stricken

Some of that was in that they wanted something the (d) would glom onto without a second thought.
Some of if is that is that it's a pork barrel bill, an appropriation of US$750 million, and appropriation bills are seldom written with severability for discretionary spending (it's up to the States to ask, and qualify for the grants).

Now, actually "getting something" as part of a compromise, that would be "fair" which for various reasons off topic for THR never happens in DC.

 

[F-111 John]

At least the enhanced NICS examination of juvenile criminal and mental health records for 18-20 year olds has a sunset provision.

(3) SUNSET OF REQUIREMENTS TO CONTACT STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES.—Effective on September 30, 2032, paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) are repealed, and the provisions of law amended by those paragraphs are restored as if those paragraphs had not been enacted.
​

And, unlike the original Lautenberg Amendment, the "boyfriend loophole" section is NOT retroactive.

(b) NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall not apply to any conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence entered before the date of enactment of this Act.
​

And who else found this Easter Egg that upped the Medicare Improvement slush fund from $5 million to $7.5 billion?

SEC. 13201. MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Section 1898(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395iii(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2021, $5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal year 2022, $7,500,000,000’’.
​

For reference: 42 U.S.C 1395iii: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395iii