Congress Introduces Several Gun-Control Bills

Not wanting to let a crisis go to waste, Members of Congress have introduced three separate gun control bills in response to the horrific incident in Las Vegas a few weeks ago. These are in addition to the myriad of anti-bump-stock bills being drafted.

The proposals include HR 3962 to ban online ammunition sales, HR 4025 to require the reporting by dealers the sale of two or more rifles to one individual in a five-day period, and HR 4052 to ban sale and possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.


New Jersey Democrat Bonnie Coleman is sponsoring the “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2017,” (HR 3962), legislation that would require all ammo sales to be conducted face to face so the identity of the buyer could be confirmed, thereby banning ammo sales over the internet. The measure goes further and would require vendors to report sales of more than 1,000 rounds to one person in a five-day period to the U.S. Attorney General as well as state and local law enforcement.


First Aid for Gunshot Wounds 2A Institute

Norma Torres (D-CA) introduced HR 4025, known as the “Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act of 2017.” This proposed measure would amend and expand an existing federal law that currently requires the reporting of two or more handgun sales to the same individual in a five-day period to substitute the word “firearms” in place of “pistols, or revolvers” in the law. Licensed firearms dealers would have to report such transactions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Currently, multiple handgun sales must be reported by all dealers, and multiple rifle sales by dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas must be reported to the ATF. Torres stated that “Our law enforcement agencies need to know if anyone is stocking up on AR-15s and AK-47s.”


Connecticut Representative, Elizabeth Etsy, introduced the “Keep Americans Safe Act,” (HR 4052), to ban the sale or possession of detachable magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. Her argument—“No sportsman or woman needs 30 rounds to kill a deer. It’s shameful that we protect our deer better than we protect our people.”

All three bills have been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

First Aid for Gunshot Wounds 2A Institute

Comment section

21 comments on “Congress Introduces Several Gun-Control Bills

  1. What are the TLS attorneys doing to fight these sorts of bills? Is TLS currently lobbying? If not, what exactly is my money going towards?

    • Hi George. Thank you for your question! We are not a Political Action Committee (PAC). Your membership provides you with legal defense should you ever need it. We share blogs such as this one to provide you with more information and we encourage all our members to call their Representatives to voice your support or opposition to these bills.

    • George, in addition to TLS, become a member of the NRA. That’s our D.C. Lobbying organization.

      • The NRA is now green lighting Republicans to support gun control legislation, such as “bump Stocks”. I have cancelled my NRA membership and told them that I will not be renewing my firearm instructor training credentials with them either!
        They are not an organization that is worth my money!

  2. Ms. Etsy, it might come as a shock to you, but the Second Amendment isn’t about killing deer.

  3. I find it interesting that all three bills, while doing nothing but limiting the rights of law abiding citizens, have such high moral sounding names: “Keep Americans Safe Act”. None will address the real issues of mental illness or terrorism, or for that matter, someone just bent on killing someone else. If they really want to help protect lives, how about addressing the issue of driving while intoxicated? It’s simple control of the people hidden behind a high-sounding moral smokescreen…..

    • I agree with you Tim. This just limits or rights as law abiding citizens. I’ve gone through my back ground checks. I have a Top secret clearance with DOD, in the Army 16 years and I love going out with muy Colt M-4 mil spec ruffle and doing target practice at the range on my own time, and with a 30 round magazine, because that is my right. Politics are just political. Let’s be real. The government is out of control, state and federal. The federal government need to over see state governments gun control systems. Something bad happens in that state when people are harmed, that state needs to be investigated and held responsible. But here they are the government’s trying to deflect blam on gun holders instead of taking responsibility of there slip up. I can go on and on, but bottom line is if something happens in my house I am responsible, and the government should have the legal obligation and act the same way.

    • I agree wholeheartedly Tim. But let’s face it, congress doesn’t care that the real problem is mental illness and the poluted mind that leads an individual to senselessly kill innocent people. If someone is dead set of killing the absense of high capacity magazine isn’t going to fix anything.

  4. The question is George, what are you stop this? Have you written and called your representatives to demand they vote these bills down? WE THE PEOPLE must remind our Government tbat they work for us.

  5. Thanks for sharing this new information. As a member since 2015, I’m always in appreciation. We should all be very concerned of our rights to defend one another. Godspeed

  6. D-CA… This is so strange for a CA Democrat to institute a gun control rule for consideration, for they passed one and then exempted them selfs from it ..Was it not so “they can carry” but no one else in the state can carry …legally ?

  7. These bills are just buying the bill’s authors spot light time. We’ve been down this road too many times. They never even see the light of day. I don’t know why they like publicity that much. They already know the American people will reject these bills. And Congress will eventually forget about them too. Even if they do pass, I don’t think they will be enforceable in the state of Texas.

  8. Limiting high-capacity magazines may not be effective because someone adept with a firearm can switch from one 10-round clip to another very quickly.
    Bump-stocks actually skirt a 1934 federal law intended to stop the use of machine guns, because the original law specified a mechanism rather than a modification. The 1934 law needs to be amended to cover modifications such as a bump-stock which effectively change the firearm into a fully automatic machine gun.

  9. In addition to the NRA, join the TSRA. They are both lobbying on our behalf.

  10. Why does congress seem to be hell bent on suppressing the rights of law abiding Americans but still allow law breakers to walk the streets to break the laws of our country over and over again.

  11. on the ban for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, is that for rifles or hand guns or both? what about hand guns now that hold more than 10 rounds? i have a S-W 2.0 that holds 16, now what? thanks tim

    • Hi Tim. Thanks for your question! The proposed law will not apply legally to owned high capacity magazines owned prior to the enacted new law if passed. The bill states, “(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.”

  12. A firearm is a mechanical device which is activated and directed only by a human being. A firearm belongs to a category of mechanical devices that are capable of inflicting deadly force. If some logic (valid or not) leads to the conclusion that firearms should be subject to controls that severely limit the acquisition and possession of a firearm (to the point that any abuse of the characteristics of such a device is rendered impossible), then any mechanical device of similar capability should also be subject to the same level of control. Therefore; cars, planes, trucks, ships, machine tools, and many more devices should be subject to such controls because they share the same characteristics. Should cars be limited to 5 gallon gas tanks and require an unreasonably extensive background check of the potential buyer before they can be purchased? I suspect that few gun control advocates would agree to such controls on cars. What does this say about their real motives for wanting to apply more gun control?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.