Utah Freedom Coalition

2A Bills, Court Case and More Breakdown

This blog will be evolving as we get more and more information and are able to better breakdown the information, but for now this is a breakdown of several bills, legislation, court cases or other threatening our 2A rights.

HR 1446 and H8

H8– will ban private firearms sales and force firearm purchases to be registered through the Brady-NICS registration system.

The passage of H.R. 8 would be one of the biggest gun control expansion in decades

Purpose: To Require Background Check for every firearm sale
There are exceptions for immediate family (spouses, parent-child, siblings, grandparents-grandchildren, uncles/aunts-nephews/nieces). No background checks would be required. But for friends, cousins, neighbors? You would have to go through this new process.

It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transfer (i.e., sell) a firearm to any other person who is not also licensed, unless a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer take possession of firearm for purpose of complying with subsection (t). Every third party sale of firearms would now be required to go through the background check system, and so an additional fee would be required for used gun sales.

Subsection (t) is already the law today and is in force for when a person purchases a gun from a dealer.
1. Has the dealer contact national instant background check.
2. The Background check
a. Provides a unique identification number for the transaction, or
b. If after 3 days, if the Feds have not given the notification back, the transaction can go

3. Transferor must verify identity of the transferee.
4. Once the transfer goes through, the system destroys the records so that a database of the firearms to the old and new owner can’t be created.

This means that the dealer (usually where people would go), then runs a background check as if the dealer was selling the gun to the customer. They get to charge money for this background check.

The entity doing the background check also must give the transferrer a “notice of prohibition” and the transferrer must certify they received the notice. So this process would be expanded to non-dealer sales. It still is within the 3 days. But it makes used gun sales more expensive and slow, infringing on the right to bear arms. This HR 8 specifically states that a national registry is prohibited from being created. Yet, HR 1446 does not state this prohibition.

HR 1446

would allow the inadequacies of the NICS registration system to delay a law-abiding citizen from legally purchasing a gun for 10 days or more.

This bill is tied directly to HR 8. HR 8 is fairly inocous, but coupled with HR 1446, together they make it
scary. HR8 loops all sales of firearms under the background check system, and HR 1446 makes it almost guaranteed that all firearms sales will go from from 3 business days max for completion, to not less than 20 business days to complete (that is basically one month, but could be more, depending on when
the petition is file. See next sentence). In addition, now, the purchase of the firearm would require a purchaser to petition the US Attorney General for review in order to get the firearm. I watched a commentary of someone on YouTube that said the effect would not lower the amount of purchasing, but simply lengthen the transaction time. However, by requiring a petition to the US Attorney General, nothing in this bill, would prohibit the Attorney General’s office of creating a database of everyone that petitions for a firearm. HR 1446 is a de facto back door firearms and firearms owner registry.

Specifically, H.R. 1446 changes the following current law:

(ii) in the event the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section—
(I) not fewer than 10 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) has elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section, and the other person has submitted, electronically through a website established by the Attorney General or by first-class mail, a petition for review which—
(aa) certifies that such other person has no reason to believe that such other person is prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm; and
(bb) requests that the system respond to the contact referred to in subparagraph (A) within 10 business days after the date the petition was submitted (or, if the petition is submitted by first- class mail, the date the letter containing the petition is postmarked); and
(II) 10 business days have elapsed since the other person so submitted the petition, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section; and”; and

  • Commentary:
  • This 10 business days is 2 calendar weeks. The national instant criminal background system still
  • destroys all records with respect to the call (the background check call).
  • The Attorney General also “prescribes” the form on which the petition shall be submitted.”
  • The Bill also creates a bunch of reporting to various federal agencies, to track how the Bill is executed,
  • for statistics.


HR 127- Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

  • Each firearm owner required to register their identity and the firearms they own, and where the firearms are stored.
  • We have three months to report to ATF once it becomes law; all new firearms are reported the date they are acquired.
  • Officially creates a registry held by the US AG.
  • The registry (firearms owners and the guns they own) is accessible to:
  • Public
  • All law enforcement agencies
  • U.S. Military
  • All sate and local governments
  • Attorney General gives license to you if:
  • 21 years old
  • Pass criminal background check
  • Pass psychological evaluation that says you are suited “to possess a firearm”
  • Standards created by the AG
  • Conducted by licensed psychologist approved by AG
  • Your family members pass a psychological evaluation as well
  • Your spouse and 2 other people (family, friends, neighbors, coworkers) to determine your “mental, emotional, and relational stability”
  • Complete “AG certified” 24 hour training course
  • Carry forced insurance policy costing $800 per year
  • If you have an antique firearm, you must have the license, and can only display it per the manner prescribed by the AG.  The AG gets to approve of the “facility or safe” for storage of the firearms.
  • A Military-style weapons license is also created (what is a “military-style weapon” – likely AR-15, that look mean but are simply semi-auto rifles).
  • Must have the regular ATF;AG firearms license
  • Must do the 24hour course, that includes live fire training (in addition to the first 24 hours? (not sure)).
  • You would lose your license if you were “indicted” of a crime that would put you in jail at least 1 year.  (Guilty until proven innocent).
  • You would lose your license if you did not have firearm insurance.
  • If your license is revoked, you must:
  • Return the license
  • Surrender all firearms and ammunition to the AG
  • You must renew annually for the first five years, and then every three years after the first five years.
  • Renew within 60-day window
  • Prove insurance
  • Take 8 hours of AG-certified course
  • After five years,
  • you must redo the psychological evaluation
  • complete hours of firearms training
  • Military Style weapons include:
  • AR-15s and the like
  • Shotguns with semi-auto clips of five or more rounds
  • Some handguns
  • Others
  • Criminal Laws
  • You are a criminal if you give or sell your gun or ammo to another person who is not “licensed”.
  • You are a criminal if you loan, give or sell your gun or ammo to another person without notifying the AG.
  • You are criminal if you transfer firearm to minors (under 18 years old).
  • You are a criminal if you don’t purchase firearm insurance every year.
  • Criminal Penalties
  • If you have a firearm or ammunition without a “license” (922(aa))
  • $75,000 min – $150,000 max fine, or
  • 15 years min – 25 years max in prison, or both
  • If you transfer a firearm or ammunition to a nonlicensed person (922(bb)(1))
  • $50,000 min – $75,000 max fine, or
  • 10 years min – 15 years max in prison, or both
  • If you sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person without notifying the U.S. Attorney General (922(bb)(2)):
  • $30,000 min – $50,000 max fine, or
  • 5 years min – 10 years max in prison, or both
  • If you loan a firearm or ammunition to another and don’t disclose the details of the loan to the US Attorney General (922(bb)(3)
  • $5,000 min – $10,000 max fine
  • If you transfer a firearm to a minor (under Age 18): (922(bb)(4)):
  • $75,000 min – $150,000 max fine, or
  • 15 years min – 25 years max in prison, or both
  • If you transfer a firearm to a minor, who then goes out and commits a crime with the firearm, participates in an unintentional shooting, or  suicide (922(bb)(4)):
  • $100,000 min – $150,000 max fine, or
  • 25 years min – 40 years max in prison, or both
  • If you have a firearm without insurance (922(cc)):
  • $50,000 min – $100,000 max fine, or
  • 10 years min – 20 years max in prison, or both
  • If you have ammunition  .50 calibar or bigger (922(dd)(1)):
  • $50,000 min – $100,000 max fine, or
  • 10 years min – 20 years max in prison, or both
  • If you have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (922(dd)(2):
  • $10,000 min – $25,000 max fine, or
  • 1 year min – 5 years max in prison, or both
  • Commentary:
  • Since everyone who desires to acquire a firearm would be required to undergo a psychological evaluation, and almost any 2 people who are an “associate” could be interviewed, a person would be denied a firearm If they were deemed to have “a mental illness…depression…or a brain disease” or any thing that the psychologist could interpret as “conduct that endangers self or others.”
  •  Under the proposed law, there are 8-9 ways in which an otherwise law-abiding U.S. citizen/national could break the law.  In addition, when a person breaks these new laws, it would likely be that they break more than one law, and thus would have “stacked” charges against them with huge minimums for fines and/or prison time.
  • Thus, if the law passed, a person that resisted following the law, and who owned an AR-15 firearm and ammunition with large capacity magazines, , would face felony charges of:
  • Owning a firearm and ammunition
  • Owning a firearm without insurance
  • Owning a large capacity magazine
  • In this scenario, the firearm owner would have a stacked amount of
  • $135,000 to $175,000 fines, or
  • 26 years to 50 years in prison, or both
  • For what is perfectly legal today, if this law were to pass,  the particular law-abiding gun owner as outlined would face a minimum 26 years in prison, and/or a minimum fine of $135,000. 
  • It is likely this Bill is being introduced with these extremes, so that the true target at this time is a substantially less intrusive, but nevertheless infringing on the 2nd Amendment.   I believe the big win they are looking for is for people to petition the AG / ATF for permission to get a firearm and create a gun owner and gun registry, introduce the idea of psychological evaluations, and then if any of these provisions got through, it would be a bonus for the anit-2A lobby.

S 42- Background Check Expansion Act

  • Overview: It appears to curb individual to individual sales of firearms.
  • Unlawful for unlicensed individuals to transfer firearms. 
  • However transfer of a firearm between family members, trusts, executors is allowed.
  • Transfers that is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm only as long as the condition is present is allowed. 
  • Temporary transfers are allowed for shooting ranges etc.
  • Temporary transfer for hunting are allowed.

HR112. Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019

Overview: expands mental illness definitions. While on the surface this may read well, it could be a poison pill of sorts.  How do we classify mental illness now?  Anyone who holds Traditional values?

Expands mental illness from:  adjudicated as a mental defective, to: mental illness, severe developmental disability or sever emotional instability.

SCOTUS 20-157

Overview:  Attempt to reverse the Community caretaking doctrine and preserve privacy in the home.

  • Respondents claim that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply at all when officers act for non-investigatory purposes. And even if the warrant requirement does apply to some non-investigatory actions, they say that the Court should create a new exception for community caretaking. Whether framed as an end-run around the warrant requirement entirely or as grounds for creating a new exception, Respondents’ argument is that the Fourth Amendment lets government officials invade homes in the name of “community caretaking.” They offer no sound basis for the radical rule they seek
  • Warrants are not required when officers act for non-investigatory purposes under the Community Caretaking doctrine – as long as they are reasonable.
  • all warrantless intrusions of the home are unreasonable—no matter their purpose
  • public safety needs did not “justify creating a new exception to the warrant requirement
  • Other cases confirm that the warrant requirement applies even to searches based on public safety needs
  • Even the most law-abiding citizen has a very tangible interest in limiting the circumstances under which the sanctity of his home may be broken by official authority – despite the uniform.
  • Absent the need for immediate action, there is no legitimate reason to bypass the warrant requirement.
  • Cars and house are not the same thing, but even cars should be protected from inventory searches as a ruse for rummaging in order to discover evidence.  (ie. While investigating accidents, they do not have a warrant, and should not be acting under the Community caretaking doctrine – although they often do.  But just because they do with cars, they should NEVER with homes as it would destroy the 4th amendment)
  • No color of law satisfies entering a home. (ie. ‘Cause I heard a noise’) The Fourth Amendment requires a true emergency or a warrant.
  • There Is No Basis For Creating A New Exception To The Warrant Requirement

Share this post on your favorite social