Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate over HB 183 centers on federal NICS checks vs. state checks and who pays for background checks
Summary
Sponsors argued for relying on the federal NICS system and eliminating the state-only criminal background check; critics warned that federal checks may not reveal Utah juvenile records or protective orders. An amendment to require dealers to pay fees was offered and sharply contested.
A contentious floor debate unfolded Feb. 7 over House Bill 183, the third substitute, which would substantially change how Utah handles criminal background checks for firearm purchases.
Sponsor Representative Throckmorton argued the bill would rely on the federal NICS system and pointed to experience in 27 states that use it. “There are 27 states that do nothing but the federal background check,” he said, adding staff figures identifying about 4.5 million checks and noting one mistake in that sample. “If we had that kind of efficiency… we would be entirely thrilled,” he told colleagues.
Other members sought clarifications about state-specific information that the federal system may not return. Representative Arrant asked whether NICS would reveal Utah juvenile criminal history and protective orders; Arrant warned that not seeing protective orders would be “a critical error” and urged assurance those data would be available.
Representative Hendrickson offered amendment number 6 (dated and entered on the floor) to restore state-level criminal background checks and to place the fee burden on firearm dealers rather than the purchaser. Hendrickson said dealers should pay for background checks if they want to be in the business of selling firearms; opponents countered the amendment reversed the substitute’s intent and could increase fees and administrative burdens.
Floor discussion touched on constitutional framing, administrative details of BCI/FBI checks, and whether domestic-violence convictions and juvenile records appear in the federal system. Sponsor and staff pointed legislators to a BCI-provided comparison sheet; the exchange left at least some members unconvinced that the federal-only approach would capture protective orders and juvenile histories.
Outcome and next steps: The floor moved to substitute and discussion continued; members signaled readiness for a straight up-or-down vote and for committee-level or floor revision if unresolved technical issues (juvenile records, protective orders, fee allocation) remained.
