This resolution (H. Res. 405) puts three Judiciary Committee bills on the House floor and prescribes the terms for their consideration.
It names H.R. 2240 (reports on violent attacks against officers), H.R. 2243 (amendments to the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and concealed‑carry provisions), and H.R. 2255 (allowing federal officers to buy retired service weapons), and ties each bill to specific procedural rules.
The resolution removes several common procedural hurdles: it waives points of order against consideration and against provisions in the bills, directs that the committee’s amendment in the nature of a substitute be treated as adopted and the bills be considered as read, limits debate to one hour, and preserves a single motion to recommit. Those choices compress scrutiny and control how the bills can be amended or challenged on the floor—effects that matter to committees, sponsors, the House majority and minority, and stakeholders in law enforcement and firearms policy.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution makes consideration of three specified bills in order and prescribes floor procedures: it waives points of order, deems Judiciary Committee substitutes adopted, treats the bills as read, limits debate to one hour, and allows one motion to recommit. It also equalizes debate control between the Judiciary Committee chair and ranking minority member (or designees).
Who It Affects
Directly affected are the House Judiciary Committee, the sponsors and managers of H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255, and all House members who would otherwise raise procedural objections or offer amendments on the floor. Indirectly affected are DOJ officials, federal law‑enforcement organizations, firearms‑policy advocates, and counsel preparing legislative text or compliance analyses.
Why It Matters
By prescribing these terms the resolution narrows the path for amendment and procedural objections, effectively shaping final statutory language before a full floor debate. For practitioners and stakeholders, that matters because the resolution alters when and how substantive issues in the three bills can be raised, contested, or modified.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 405 is a classic “rule” resolution: it doesn’t change substantive law itself but sets the House’s rules for considering three separate bills.
Instead of leaving standard procedural checks in place, the resolution clears the way for floor action by eliminating the ability to object to the bills’ consideration on procedural grounds. It also avoids reading the bill texts aloud by treating them ‘‘as read.’n
The resolution adopts the Judiciary Committee’s recommended amendments in the nature of substitute for each bill and treats those substitutes as the starting text on the floor. That means the committee’s redrafted text—not the bills’ original introductions—becomes the operative language for any further amendment or passage.
At the same time the resolution narrows debate time to one hour total (divided equally) and limits intervening motions so only one motion to recommit is permitted.Operationally, these choices concentrate control with the Judiciary Committee leadership and the House floor managers designated by the resolution. Members outside the Committee lose many standard procedural levers: points of order that might force textual fixes, extended debate to draw public attention, or additional motions to alter the flow.
For outside stakeholders—federal law‑enforcement agencies, gun‑policy groups, and counsel advising affected parties—the practical effect is a shorter window to press for last‑minute changes or to bring new legal or budgetary issues to the floor’s attention.Finally, the resolution explicitly lists the three bills by number and subject matter, which is important because the waiver and debate terms attach only to those bills as printed with the committee substitutes. Any differing procedural language on other measures remains untouched; the rule’s scope is the three identified bills and the precise committee substitutes printed with them.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of each listed bill and against provisions in each bill as the committee substitutes are adopted.
It directs that the Committee on the Judiciary’s amendment in the nature of substitute for each bill shall be considered adopted and the bills shall be considered as read, making the substitutes the operative floor text.
Debate on each bill is limited to one hour total, equally divided and controlled by the Judiciary Committee chair and the ranking minority member or their designees.
The resolution orders the previous question to final passage on each bill and any further amendment to final passage, leaving only one motion to recommit as an intervening motion.
The rule applies specifically to H.R. 2240 (reports on violent attacks against officers), H.R. 2243 (amendments to LEOSA and concealed‑carry provisions), and H.R. 2255 (allowing purchase of retired federal service weapons).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Makes the three bills in order under controlled terms
This section is the operative rule language: once the resolution is adopted, the House may consider each bill named in Section 2 under the special terms set out. Practically, Section 1 replaces ordinary consideration procedures with the specific constraints that follow; it’s the clause that imports waiver, substitute adoption, debate limits, and the previous‑question directive into floor practice.
Waives procedural objections; adopts committee substitutes as the base text
The resolution explicitly waives ‘‘all points of order’’ against consideration and against provisions in each bill and declares the committee’s amendments in the nature of substitute to be considered adopted. For floor managers that short‑circuits challenges under House rules (for example germaneness or jurisdictional assertions), meaning textual or jurisdictional defects must be addressed before the rule or on committee record rather than on the floor.
Limits debate and channels amendment opportunities
This portion limits debate to one hour per bill, equally divided and controlled by the Judiciary Committee leadership or their designees, and orders the previous question to final passage on final bills and amendments. That configuration compresses the time for floor persuasion and reduces avenues for introducing or debating alternative language beyond what committees already approved.
Preserves a single motion to recommit
The resolution keeps the House’s traditional single motion to recommit as the sole substantive intervening motion available to the minority. That is a standard concession in many rules but matters because it is the principal remaining mechanism for delaying or returning a bill to committee with instructions.
Specifies the three bills covered by the rule
Section 2 lists the exact bills subject to the rule: H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255, and provides a short identifying description for each. The specificity is important: the procedural waivers and limits apply only to those bills and to the committee substitute text printed with them; identical substantive language placed on a different bill number wouldn’t automatically receive the same treatment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Majority leadership and House floor managers — they gain tight procedural control to move these specific measures quickly and prevent procedural delay.
- Judiciary Committee leadership and bill sponsors — the committee’s substitutes are adopted as the starting point, protecting the committee’s negotiated text from wholesale floor rewrite.
- Supporters of the three bills — interest groups favoring law‑enforcement policies or relaxed rules for officers’ access to retired weapons get a compressed window to secure passage before protracted floor amendments can be offered.
Who Bears the Cost
- House minority and individual members outside Judiciary — they lose ordinary points of order, extended debate, and broader amendment opportunities to contest or reshape the bills on the floor.
- Members seeking additional oversight or disclosure amendments — the one‑hour limit and adopted substitutes curtail chances to expand debate on legal, budgetary, or civil‑liberties implications.
- Parliamentarians and counsel to Members — they must work quickly to identify any residual procedural vulnerabilities or to prepare a motion to recommit; reduced floor time raises the operational burden on staff and legal advisors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is efficiency versus deliberation: the resolution advances quick, disciplined floor action for three law‑enforcement bills by curtailing procedural obstacles and debate, but it does so at the expense of the fuller scrutiny, amendment opportunities, and public airing that longer floor proceedings provide.
Waiving points of order and deeming committee substitutes adopted expedites floor action but also shifts scrutiny upstream. Any legal, budgetary, or jurisdictional problems that would ordinarily be surfaced on the floor must be resolved in committee or left unaddressed.
That concentrates power in committee and leadership, but it also increases the risk that issues only apparent at the full‑House level—interactions with other statutes, unanticipated fiscal effects, or constitutional objections—won’t get a public, extended airing before passage.
Limiting debate to one hour and permitting only one motion to recommit balances speed against minority rights, but it creates practical bottlenecks. Members who rely on floor debate to collect signatures, negotiate amendments, or pressure agencies will have a smaller window.
For stakeholders outside Congress—federal agencies, regulated entities, and civil‑society groups—the rule shortens the useful period for lobbying or for filing technical memos that could influence final text. Finally, the rule’s reliance on the committee substitute as the operative text raises implementation questions if the substitute contains drafting errors or ambiguous language; fixing those errors after passage can be more cumbersome than amending on the floor.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.