Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,956 posts)
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 02:30 PM Jun 2022

House votes 234-193 to give final approval to bipartisan compromise gun bill spurred by Texas and N.

Source: New York Daily News

N.Y. mass shootings

The House of Representatives voted 234-193 to give final approval to a compromise gun bill that won some bipartisan support after last month’s bloody massacres in a Buffalo, New York supermarket and a Texas elementary school in Uvalde.

In a mostly party-line vote, the Democratic-led House quickly passed the bill that modestly tightens some restrictions after the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve it over the vehement objections of right-wing gun-rights advocates.

Only 14 Republicans joined all Democrats in voted for the bill including Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.), the Buffalo-area lawmaker who decided not to run for reelection after his support for modest gun restrictions sparked an angry GOP backlash.

“Every day, gun violence steals lives and scars communities — and this crisis demands urgent action,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-votes-234-193-to-give-final-approval-to-bipartisan-compromise-gun-bill-spurred-by-texas-and-n-y-mass-shootings/ar-AAYPIsB



I'm sure SCOTUS will overturn it.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
House votes 234-193 to give final approval to bipartisan compromise gun bill spurred by Texas and N. (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2022 OP
"I'm sure SCOTUS will overturn it." BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #1
I could be wrong, but The Mouth Jun 2022 #3
I have the bill text in a tab and haven't gone completely throuh the 80 pages in detail but BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #5
Well, how about that. maxsolomon Jun 2022 #2
More about mental health and political cover 867-5309. Jun 2022 #4
It's something, but it's not enough. LudwigPastorius Jun 2022 #6

BumRushDaShow

(128,905 posts)
1. "I'm sure SCOTUS will overturn it."
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 02:41 PM
Jun 2022

If they don't do an immediate stay, it might actually go into effect... albeit "briefly".

The Mouth

(3,149 posts)
3. I could be wrong, but
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 03:16 PM
Jun 2022

The SCOTUS decision was primarily about concealed carry.

This bill is about background checks and mental health.

What was ruled unconstitutional are the provisions which allow a sheriff or police dept to refuse a CCW *at all* even if a person passes reasonable background checks and jumps through the hoops.

Sane people know there are some folks who shouldn't have guns.

BumRushDaShow

(128,905 posts)
5. I have the bill text in a tab and haven't gone completely throuh the 80 pages in detail but
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 05:17 PM
Jun 2022

someone might try to battle the "boyfriend loophole" (although obviously not called that in the legislation). I.e., they call it "Domestic Violence" -

SEC. 12005. MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

(a) Defining ``Dating Relationship''.--Section 921(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (33)(A)(ii)--
(A) by striking ``or by a person'' and inserting
``by a person''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, or by a person who has a current or
recent former dating relationship with the victim'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(37)(A) The term `dating relationship' means a relationship
between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
``(B) Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship
under subparagraph (A) shall be determined based on consideration of--
``(i) the length of the relationship;
``(ii) the nature of the relationship; and
``(iii) the frequency and type of interaction between the
individuals involved in the relationship.
``(C) A casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a
business or social context does not constitute a dating relationship
under subparagraph (A).''.
(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.
(c) Limitations on Convictions of Crimes of Domestic Violence With
Respect to Dating Relationships.--Section 921(a)(33) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``subparagraph (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B)
and (C)''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``State,,'' and
inserting ``State,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against an individual in a
dating relationship for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has
been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has
been pardoned or has had firearm rights restored unless the
expungement, pardon, or restoration of rights expressly provides that
the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms:
Provided, That, in the case of a person who has not more than 1
conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against an
individual in a dating relationship, and is not otherwise prohibited
under this chapter, the person shall not be disqualified from shipping,
transport, possession, receipt, or purchase of a firearm under this
chapter if 5 years have elapsed from the later of the judgment of
conviction or the completion of the person's custodial or supervisory
sentence, if any, and the person has not subsequently been convicted of
another such offense, a misdemeanor under Federal, State, Tribal, or
local law which has, as an element, the use or attempted use of
physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, or any other
offense that would disqualify the person under section 922(g). The
national instant criminal background check system established under
section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C.
40901) shall be updated to reflect the status of the person.
Restoration under this subparagraph is not available for a current or
former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, a person with whom
the victim shares a child in common, a person who is cohabiting with or
has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or a
person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the
victim.''.


This was a biggy that many org have been trying to get codified and it would be target rich for the loons to go after.

maxsolomon

(33,327 posts)
2. Well, how about that.
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 02:51 PM
Jun 2022

I thought the Dems would add tougher measures and cause a reconciliation fight. Guess they decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Sign it quick, Joe.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»House votes 234-193 to gi...