PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · May 17, 2023
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act
This bill directs the General Services Administration to establish a program under which a federal law enforcement officer may purchase a retired firearm from the agency that issued the firearm to the officer.
People & committees
Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 232 - 198 (Roll no. 222).
House roll call 222 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 232 - 198 (Roll no. 222).
House roll call 222 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3091.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2401-2405)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 3091 as unfinished business.
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Fry moved that the committee rise.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Rosendale amendment No. 4, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 398, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rosendale amendment No. 4.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Luttrell amendment No. 3, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 398, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Luttrell amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the McCormick amendment No. 2, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 398, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McCormick amendment No. 2.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Jacobs amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jacobs demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 398, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jacobs amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 3091.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Mike Garcia to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 398 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2494, H.R. 3091 and H. Con. Res. 40. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2494 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; H.R. 3091 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; and H.Con.Res. 40 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate. The resolution provides for a motion to recommit on H.R. 2494 and H.R. 3091.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 398. (consideration: CR H2389-2394; text: CR H2390-2391)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 398 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2494, H.R. 3091 and H. Con. Res. 40. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2494 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; H.R. 3091 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; and H.Con.Res. 40 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate. The resolution provides for a motion to recommit on H.R. 2494 and H.R. 3091.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 39.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-58.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-58.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3091 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3091 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3091 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3091 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.