Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 226

Keeping Guns From People Convicted of Violent Crimes or Distributing Drugs and Alcohol

Argument in favor

Gun violence is an epidemic in this country — and the perpetrators are often people who have committed crimes in the past. This bill will help keep guns out of the hands of high risk individuals.

Donald's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
Those persons having a history of violence against persons and animals should not have or have access to any weapons.
Like (27)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
And many of these criminals used a weapon during their behaviors. That's why they're in custody. So, YES. NO GUNS OR WEAPONS EVER!
Like (11)
Follow
Share
JeremieRoss's Opinion
···
10/05/2015
Violent crimes yes, why take it away from people distributing alcohol though?
Like (4)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The use of "reasonable suspicion" to deny a person access to firearms or ammunition in this bill is just asking to be abused. Law abiding gun owners shouldn't be punished just because they "might" have a criminal record.

Drew's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
This definition is way to broad. Those convicted of violent crimes should be restricted, but suspected or possible persons gives too much leeway and abusive power to the govt.
Like (27)
Follow
Share
ark4162's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
convicted - yes. Suspected - ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!!!! Ever hear the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? What the hell are you trying to pull here?
Like (19)
Follow
Share
Michael's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
Innocent until proven guilty. The "suspected" category simply opens the door to interpretation and likely abuse by "discriminating" individuals.
Like (10)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 226?

This bill would prohibit the sale or transfer of firearms or ammunition to anyone who is either has, or there is "reasonable cause "to believe the person has:

  • Been convicted of a violent crime within the previous 10 years;

  • Is under age 25 and committed an offense that would have been a violent crime if they had been tried as adults;

  • Has been convicted on two separate occasions within a three-year timespan in the preceding 10 years of an offense related to the distribution of alcohol or a controlled substance;

  • Has been convicted of stalking. 

Any person who fits the above categories would be prohibited from:

  • Shipping or transporting in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing in a commercial capacity any firearm or ammunition;

  • Receiving any firearm or ammunition which has been subject to interstate or foreign commerce.

Impact

People who’ve been convicted of violent crimes or are suspected of having previous convictions on their record, plus people and businesses who would sell or transfer guns and ammunition.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 226

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Currently this bill has 12 cosponsors in the House, all of whom are Democrats.

Of Note: If you define a "mass shooting" as an incident where more than four people have been shot — in the 1,004 days from January 1, 2013 there has been a mass shooting every single day 

As with anything else, there are many sides to the gun control issue. For a pretty excellent summation of two popular viewpoints (with very visceral experiences), check out this segment from "This American Life."

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user KOMUnews)

AKA

Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act

Official Title

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale or other disposition of a firearm to, and the possession, shipment, transportation, or receipt of a firearm by, certain classes of high-risk individuals.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
    IntroducedJanuary 8th, 2015
    Those persons having a history of violence against persons and animals should not have or have access to any weapons.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    This definition is way to broad. Those convicted of violent crimes should be restricted, but suspected or possible persons gives too much leeway and abusive power to the govt.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    convicted - yes. Suspected - ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!!!! Ever hear the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? What the hell are you trying to pull here?
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    And many of these criminals used a weapon during their behaviors. That's why they're in custody. So, YES. NO GUNS OR WEAPONS EVER!
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Innocent until proven guilty. The "suspected" category simply opens the door to interpretation and likely abuse by "discriminating" individuals.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Your key word is "Suspected". We are innocent until proven guilty. Once convicted the law spells it out.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    The problem here is "suspected." Sorry but no. This is just begging to be abused. No law should be based on murky probabilities of guilt or innocence.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Some of these people may need guns for self-defense. Also, my main problem with this is the "suspected" part. "Just because the government says you're suspected of something now means you can't purchase something" is a major flaw, and is easily exploited.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Violent crimes yes, why take it away from people distributing alcohol though?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Suspicion isn't enough to restrict someone's rights. A conviction of a violent crime must be required.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems like common sense. If you lose your right to vote when you are convicted of a crime then you should definitely lose your right to bear arms
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I support some forms of gum regulations, but making any restriction based on suspicion is unconstitutional.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    I believe the right to keep and bear arms should never be infringed on law abiding, responsible citizens. Thugs and criminals shoot be removed from society.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    No one with a criminal past should be allowed to own a firearm especially with such a high recidivism rate in this country. We don't rehabilitate we incarcerate and repeat. As soon as we start to actually fix the problem this country has with career criminals then we can decide if they should own weapons meant to kill.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Background checks are the best way to go about this.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    There is a psychological truism that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. A history of violent acts is a warning that guns in the hand of person with violent behavior would be a potential danger in the future. I t may also indicate that the person has a mental illness and is not able to have good judgment.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    When are you people going to learn?! GUN CONTROL LAWS DO NOT KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS!! If they did, cities like Chicago would be among the SAFEST in the world! We all know how BADLY Obama wants to disarm the American people. Our Constitution means NOTHING to him! We have enough gun laws on the books already! The American people need to tell Obama they'll THINK about okaying his gun control laws WHEN HE DECIDES TO PERMANENTLY DISARM HIS SECRET SERVICE! Why should American citizens be any less able to protect themselves and their families than he is to protect HIS family?!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I am in favor of all form of gun control proposals. Limiting access, banning AR's, and even issuing a buy back program for the millions of guns already out there would make a big difference.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    More fun regulations are not the answer. Follow current laws and initiate new rules for care of the mentally ill.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    "Reasonable cause" to believe they have been convicted of a crime? Anything other than set in stone documentation of their offenses should not be taken as evidence that they have been prosecuted as such.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE