Here’s the draft. Most of it concerns things like funding for mental health. One section expands “prohibited persons’ to include persons adjudicated of certain juvenile offenses.

Another section fiddles with the definition of “engaged in the business,” which defines who must get an FFL, and who is liable to prosecution if they don’t have one. The current definition dates from the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which eons ago I helped write. It defines engaged in the business as (going off memory) the repetitive acquisition and disposition of firearms, for the principal objective of livelihood a profit, as distinct from improving or liquidating a collection.

The bill (see pp. 31-32) would change “principal objective of livelihood and profit” to ‘to predominantly earn a profit,’ which apart from splitting an infinitive, seems to be the same thing. It then defines ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ to mean “that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection:” Again, it means the same thing.

I cannot see where that makes any difference in the law at all. A guess: they want to make a PR gesture?