Firearm transfers; criminal history record information checks, penalty. (HB2)
Introduced By
Del. Ken Plum (D-Reston) with support from co-patron Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✓ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
✓ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Firearm sales; criminal history record information checks; penalty. Requires a background check for any firearm sale and directs the Department of State Police (the Department) to establish a process for transferors to obtain such a background check from licensed firearms dealers. A person who sells a firearm to another person without obtaining the required background check is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill also provides that a purchaser who receives a firearm from another person without obtaining the required background check is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill removes the provision that makes background checks of prospective purchasers or transferees at firearms shows voluntary. The bill also provides that the Department shall have three business days to complete a background check before a firearm may be transferred. This bill incorporates HB 355 and is identical to SB 70. Read the Bill »
Outcome
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
11/18/2019 | Committee |
11/18/2019 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/20 20101194D |
11/18/2019 | Referred to Committee on Public Safety |
11/21/2019 | Impact statement from VCSC (HB2) |
01/17/2020 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2) |
01/24/2020 | Reported from Public Safety with substitute (13-Y 9-N) (see vote tally) |
01/24/2020 | Committee substitute printed 20106617D-H1 |
01/24/2020 | Incorporates HB355 (Kory) |
01/27/2020 | Impact statement from VCSC (HB2H1) |
01/28/2020 | Read first time |
01/29/2020 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2H1) |
01/29/2020 | Floor substitute printed 20106943D-H2 (Fariss) |
01/29/2020 | Incorporates HB355 (Kory) |
01/29/2020 | Read second time |
01/29/2020 | Passed by temporarily |
01/29/2020 | Committee substitute agreed to 20106617D-H1 |
01/29/2020 | Committee substitute reconsidered |
01/29/2020 | Substitute by Delegate Fariss out of order 20106943D-H2 |
01/29/2020 | Pending question ordered |
01/29/2020 | Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB2H1 |
01/30/2020 | Impact statement from VCSC (HB2H2) |
01/30/2020 | Read third time and passed House (54-Y 46-N) |
01/30/2020 | VOTE: Passage (54-Y 46-N) (see vote tally) |
01/31/2020 | Constitutional reading dispensed |
01/31/2020 | Referred to Committee on the Judiciary |
02/05/2020 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2H2) |
02/24/2020 | Reported from Judiciary with substitute (9-Y 5-N) (see vote tally) |
02/24/2020 | Committee substitute printed 20108950D-S1 |
02/25/2020 | Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/26/2020 | Impact statement from VCSC (HB2S1) |
02/26/2020 | Read third time |
02/26/2020 | Reading of substitute waived |
02/26/2020 | Committee substitute agreed to 20108950D-S1 |
02/26/2020 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB2S1 |
02/26/2020 | Passed Senate with substitute (23-Y 17-N) (see vote tally) |
02/28/2020 | Placed on Calendar |
02/28/2020 | Senate substitute rejected by House 20108950D-S1 (1-Y 98-N) |
02/28/2020 | VOTE: REJECTED (1-Y 98-N) (see vote tally) |
03/02/2020 | Senate insisted on substitute (22-Y 16-N) (see vote tally) |
03/02/2020 | Senate requested conference committee |
03/03/2020 | House acceded to request |
03/03/2020 | Conferees appointed by House |
03/03/2020 | Delegates: Plum, Hope, Fariss |
03/04/2020 | Conferees appointed by Senate |
03/04/2020 | Senators: Petersen, Deeds, Obenshain |
03/05/2020 | Conference report agreed to by House (50-Y 45-N) |
03/05/2020 | C Amended by conference committee |
03/05/2020 | Conference report agreed to by House (51-Y 45-N) |
03/05/2020 | VOTE: Adoption (51-Y 45-N) (see vote tally) |
03/05/2020 | Reconsideration of conference report agreed to by House |
03/05/2020 | Conference report agreed to by House (54-Y 44-N) |
03/05/2020 | VOTE: Adoption #2 (54-Y 44-N) (see vote tally) |
03/07/2020 | Conference report agreed to by Senate (23-Y 16-N) (see vote tally) |
03/10/2020 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2S1) |
03/18/2020 | Enrolled |
03/18/2020 | Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB2ER) |
03/18/2020 | Signed by President |
03/19/2020 | Signed by Speaker |
03/20/2020 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2ER) |
03/20/2020 | Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on March 20, 2020 |
03/20/2020 | G Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2020 |
04/10/2020 | G Approved by Governor-Chapter 1111 (effective 7/1/20) |
04/10/2020 | G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP1111) |
Comments
This bill is long overdue. However, a comment on another bill introduced states that AR whatever rifles are still used in competition. If they are used in competition, they are around in our environment and in houses.
this puts us on the road to confiscation. A horrible bill
The RAND Corporation did a study on background checks, analyzing other studies. It found that background checks had an inconclusive effect — they might decrease suicide and violent crime.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/background-checks.html
This begs the question: If current background checks show no measurable effects, how are universal background checks expected to make any difference?
Commonsense would seem to dictate that background checks would have a major effect, but they do not. This means the idea of performing background checks in the first place is a panacea. It makes people feel that they’re doing something while also causing the following problems:
1. Presumption of innocence. A background check requires people to prove they’re innocent before they take ownership of a firearm. Doesn’t this violate a basic American premise — the presumption of innocence?
2. Malum prohibitum. Background checks are part of a trend in which laws are created to prevent things from happening by making something illegal by statute instead of punishing actual behavior. Eventually, everything will be prohibited by statute because every action can be potentially malicious.
3. Nationalization of gun ownership. If universal background checks are implemented at the federal level, this puts the government into everyone’s home. When one wants to dispose of private property -- one's firearm -- one can longer do so without asking permission from the government. This makes every gun the property of the state and is questionable constitutionally. It also brings into question the constitutionality of universal background checks at the state level.
4. Unenforceability without universal registration. In order to trace a firearm from its manufacture all the way to its latest destination, every transfer would need to be documented along the way (universal registration). That would be the only manner in which to verify whether or not someone had transferred the firearm to someone in a private transaction without a background check. Today, once a firearm leaves a licensed dealer and goes to a private citizen after a NICS (National Instant Check System), the trail goes cold.
5. Uselessness. Nearly every mass shooting and nearly every crime in the US was committed with a firearm purchased after a background check, with a gun acquired via a straw buyer, on the black market, or stolen.
Background checks are already a solution in search of a problem. Universal background checks are a problem in search of a problem that would lead to even bigger problems and restrictions of our rights.
This bill is simply a Trojan horse for registration, which is an essential tool for confiscation backed under unconstitutional bills like SB16.