skygeek 0 #1 January 29, 2009 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements. Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #2 January 29, 2009 Quoteprohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act Wait 3 months - starting a thread discussing firearms will be "probable cause" for a search warrant of your premises. After all, if you don't have one, why would you be discussing them? (like you will have free speech either). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #3 January 30, 2009 It was already around: http://www.gunlawnews.org/110th-House-Bills/hr2666.html FIREARM LICENSING and RECORD OF SALE ACT OF 2007/ HOUSE BILL HR2666"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 January 30, 2009 QuoteIt was already around: HR2666 Oh look! In the previous Congress when this was introduced, one of the co-sponsers was Rep Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, now Obama's Chief of Staff. Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./temp/~bddCG6:@@@P|/bss/d110query.html| And people wonder why gun owners are nervous... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #5 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt was already around: HR2666 Oh look! In the previous Congress when this was introduced, one of the co-sponsers was Rep Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, now Obama's Chief of Staff. Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./temp/~bddCG6:@@@P|/bss/d110query.html| And people wonder why gun owners are nervous... Harkin, Grassley and Boswell have all been written to......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #6 January 30, 2009 Scary, huh? Not even a month into the new administration and the first salvo against our rights has been fired. Where will things go now? Hopefully the rest of our elected officials will see this proposed legislation for what it is and vote it down.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #7 January 30, 2009 It should fall flat, but given the stated goals of the admin.... I do not have faith that it will. Expect to see it hidden in a bill like the Hughes Amendment was"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #8 January 30, 2009 QuoteExpect to see it hidden in a bill like the Hughes Amendment was Yup, that's what I was thinking as well. Maybe in some sort of education bill? "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" Right?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auburnguy 0 #9 January 30, 2009 "From my cold dead hands" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #10 January 30, 2009 Did anyone read the entire bill from top to bottom or just the editorial snippet in OP's thread? Please read it and then share with me how it is any different than what police, soldiers or even a CCP/W has to go thru to establish they are/will be responsible owners (or in some cases lenient when passing on legacy weapons to family, or loaning weapons to friends for up to 30 days). Please snip the section that "unsettles" you and put it in quotes and state your objection/opinion below. I only ask that you give me YOUR opinion/objection and not spew some NRA rhetoric at me. While you're at it, please remember that I've probably had more weapons than most on here combined and been a right-to-own advocate for some 30 years - so it may be a bit of a hard sell. I really want to know here. I really want to understand your objections on responsible ownership of a weapon "title" from cradle to grave. Now, I don't agree with all of it, so 'll start: QuoteSEC. 302. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OR PERMIT INSPECTION OF RECORDS. Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, and 301 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘(dd) Failure To Maintain or Permit Inspection of Records- It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer or a licensed dealer to fail to comply with section 202 of Blair Holt’s Handgun Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, or to maintain such records or supply such information as the Attorney General may require in order to ascertain compliance with such Act and the regulations and orders issued under such Act.’ How is supply defined? Does it mean providing gun ownership transference records upon request of the local ATF Or, does it mean supply it upon police entry? Could this be interpreted as waiving one's right to warrant in their own home?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 January 30, 2009 QuoteI really want to understand your objections on responsible ownership of a weapon "title" from cradle to grave. Because those same records you support have been used by the government (who are NOT supposed to keep them by law, but do) to confiscate weapons. That's enough reason for me to fight it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #12 January 30, 2009 Quote Quote I really want to understand your objections on responsible ownership of a weapon "title" from cradle to grave. Because those same records you support have been used by the government (who are NOT supposed to keep them by law, but do) to confiscate weapons. That's enough reason for me to fight it. HOLYSHITBALLS We agree.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #13 January 30, 2009 QuoteBecause those same records you support have been used by the government (who are NOT supposed to keep them by law, but do) to confiscate weapons. Please expand, Mike. The "NOT supposed to keep them by law part." Seriously, why "not?"Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #14 January 30, 2009 You have nothing to fear, now please hand over your money and guns for your own protection."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 January 30, 2009 QuotePlease expand, Mike. The "NOT supposed to keep them by law part." Seriously, why "not?" From 18 USC, Para 926, also known as the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986: QuoteNo such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. BY LAW, the government is not allowed to keep those records - yet they do. You may trust the government to not act upon that information, regardless of history - I do not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #16 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteBecause those same records you support have been used by the government (who are NOT supposed to keep them by law, but do) to confiscate weapons. Please expand. The "NOT supposed to keep them by law part." Seriously, why "not?" Because it's none of their damned business. 99.99% of people who own guns do not use them in crime. There is no legitimate reason for the government to know who owns what type of firearms. Just as there is no reason for them to know what type of computers we own, how many parachutes we own, or to what magazines we subscribe. Let's turn this argument around. Why don't you tell us why the government should keep such records on the citizenry? If you want to invade our privacy in that manner, then you should justify why it's "necessary". Look at the stated "purpose" in the Bill: (c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are-- (1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth; (2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms; (3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and (4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.Registration won't stop #1. Passing a written test for #2 won't make you a safe gun handler. It won't accomplish #3. And #4 can already be done in the current system. This Bill is useless in accomplishing its stated objectives, and will do nothing but create an expensive boondoggle, that will rob us of resources that could better be spent fighting actual criminals. Canada did this a few years ago, and it's done nothing but waste money, not solve crimes, and they're getting ready to scrap the whole system. And furthermore, it's a camel's nose in the tent that could lead to confiscation, or gun tax schemes, and more. Nothing good will come from it, and everything bad is possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #17 January 30, 2009 QuoteWhy don't you tell us why the government should keep such records on the citizenry? If you're going to do things that may cause the people to alter or to abolish you ... QuoteThat whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ... you may want to do things to remove the ability of the people to alter or abolish you. QuoteA well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #18 January 30, 2009 the data does not back them up. A footnoted article http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=248"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 January 30, 2009 QuoteI really want to understand your objections on responsible ownership of a weapon. Just because you register, does not make you responsible. Being unregistered, does not make you irresponsible. Here's a headline for you:FBI: gangs behind up to 80% of U.S. crime "Criminal gangs in the USA have swelled to an estimated 1 million members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation, according to a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials..."Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm Spend some time on THAT problem, instead of licensing and registering the people and guns who aren't the problem. Guns don't cause crime. Criminals do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #20 January 30, 2009 QuoteGuns don't cause crime. Gangs do. But, but, but gangs won't register themselves and we have to do something! Think of the children ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #21 January 30, 2009 I think you'd have to define "gang" pretty loosely to have that statistic be anywhere close to true. Of course, the FBI, since it has an anti-gang unit, is likely to define "gang" loosely -- the more gangs, the more funding for their unit. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 January 30, 2009 Quote Please snip the section that "unsettles" you and put it in quotes and state your objection/opinion below. I only ask that you give me YOUR opinion/objection and not spew some NRA rhetoric at me. While you're at it, please remember that I've probably had more weapons than most on here combined and been a right-to-own advocate for some 30 years - so it may be a bit of a hard sell. And IIRC, in the last thread, you owned up to being in that confiscating crowd, yet still don't understand why we don't trust you further than we can throw you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #23 January 31, 2009 1. You weren't there, so you don't even get to discuss that. 2. 99% of those that had weapons confiscated had NO identification on them whatsoever. 3. Those that did were let go. 4. I also admitted that mistakes were made and they were rectified. Please tell me that you have _some_ time in te military and know that not everyone gets _the word._Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #24 January 31, 2009 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ____________________________________________________ What part of infringed do they not understand!! definition of infringement - violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #25 January 31, 2009 Quote1. You weren't there, so you don't even get to discuss that. 2. 99% of those that had weapons confiscated had NO identification on them whatsoever. 3. Those that did were let go. 4. I also admitted that mistakes were made and they were rectified. Please tell me that you have _some_ time in te military and know that not everyone gets _the word._ ....but some did not get easily rectified. It took a law suit by the NRA to fix and stop the shit."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
