HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Sale Act of 2009

[djroge1]

I just thought I'd throw what may be a hot topic for gun owners out there.

 

Google HR45 or the whole title above and read about it.

 

From what I've heard the following are some of the basics - But I'm still investigating

 

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

 

It is registered.

 

You are fingerprinted.

 

You supply a current Driver's License.

 

You supply your Social Security #.

 

You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing.

 

Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

 

There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

 

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

 

So, what are your thoughts?

[Cruznolfart]

My thoughts are that it would mitigate the rights provided by the 2d Amendment. IOW, it's unconstitutional. Just like the old voting laws that required one to demonstrate an ability to read and write in order to legally vote. A tactic to render US citizens defenseless is all it amounts to.

[KSG_Standard]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

 

It doesn't look like it will become law anytime soon. Should the fools in DC really try some crap like this, I will become an outlaw...

[Bowdiddley]

I doubt seriously that it will pass, however if it does, it will be one of the many things that this administration will pass or at least try to pass that will have to be corrected when a GOP majority is elected.

 

Actually I think Obama being elected is going to be good for our country. People are going to get a good taste of what socialism is really all about and will think twice before they put an inexperienced socialist in the white house ever again.

[Buc McMaster]

This would have totally prevented Columbine had this been in force.

 

Are you kiddign me?!?! Laws do not prevent the criminal from commiting crimminal acts - never has, never will.

[Californiaman]

This was discussed on Glen Beck a couple of weeks ago.

It's madness. There's no way they can do this. It won't ever see the light of day.

[TommyK]

I just thought I'd throw what may be a hot topic for gun owners out there.

 

Google HR45 or the whole title above and read about it.

 

From what I've heard the following are some of the basics - But I'm still investigating

 

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

 

It is registered.

 

You are fingerprinted.

 

You supply a current Driver's License.

 

You supply your Social Security #.

 

You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing.

 

Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

 

There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

 

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

 

So' date=' what are your thoughts?[/quote']

 

 

 

I agree with HR45 100%.... :D/

 

:)

 

provided....

 

the same restrictions, requirements, registrations, inspections, identification, medical assments are made for typewriters, computers, newspapers, printing presses, and other machines of Mass information dissemination and owners thereof.

 

Same thing... it would mitigate the 1st amendment. Maybe this should be added as a 'rider' to the amendment.

 

Next up. Churches and ministers

 

 

I'm tellin' you people They're using the 1st amendment to tear the rest down.

 

No coincident this subject hasn't been broached by The Big Three.

 

BTW it also abrogates the 4th and 5th Amendments as well.

 

On the child access issue. It shouldn't have to, nor do I think it should be legislated. It's common sense to keep them out of children's unsupervised hands. It doesn't even need to be legislated. A parent and / or owner of a gun is responsible for what that child does with it. They can be and have been held criminally and civilily liable.

[Buc McMaster]

You guys act like its a born right to own a frigging cannon and you have all rights to not being held accountable to where the weapon is located at' date=' if its safely put away or if you've given it to a friend who might whack a few. [/quote']

 

I'm not acting like anything. I'm merely pointing out that laws do not stop those intent on doing the wrong thing. More gun laws will not change anything.

[TommyK]

...This would have totally prevented Columbine... history tells us those weapon were purchased by a 18 year old friend because those two were denied.....

 

You just contradicted your own hypothesis. The Law, currently in place, was circumvented. The 18 year old broke it. The Law did not prevent anything.

 

Remember too, the primary instrument of distruction, for these horribly disturbed boys was propane. I hear no cry to limit distribution of that.

 

The school knew these cats were whacked out and did not, nor did the feel they could do anything. They just stood by and watched it happen. All because of some misperceived notion that it invaded their privacy.

[Buc McMaster]

What part of "criminal" do you not understand? If passing laws stopped criminal activity we would have no murder, rape, robbery or general mayhem........we passed a law and made all the bad people change their ways with the stroke of a pen. Oh if were so simple. Outlaws that want guns will find a way to have them regardless of the law, just as rapists do what they do outside the law. You and your feel-good legislation won't change anything.....the bad guys will still have guns, still rob, still kill. All a bill such as this will do is make outlaws of the millions of law-abiding Americans that legally own guns without a license.

[FennRx]

i like the part about searching your home for safety precautions....how unconstitutional can you get?

 

as others have noted, columbine happened because laws were circumvented. more laws wont prevent anything. as for the kid who shot himself, thats the parents' fault. kids also drown while their parents sleep. there was also a 9 year old not long ago who took mom's car for a joy ride. better pass more laws since children driving cars is already illegal.

 

if ammo or guns have to be registered, people simply wont register them. they certainly dont do so in canada or new jersey.

[KSG_Standard]

[FennRx]

[Hoyt]

The basic Bill -- while probably in need of a few changes -- makes a lot of sense.

 

I can see how right wing "gun nuts" might fear a mental evaluation.

[FennRx]

dr hoyt never fails to disappoint

[Murph]

People who fear guns don't want anybody to own guns.

 

People who love guns give them as gifts.

 

Do the math.

 

Murph.

[FennRx]

i got my wife the gift of a lifetime carry permit and a beretta. :P/ =P~/ =P~/

[TommyK]

 

How so' date=' the act would have prevented this; the exchange of weapons to parties not allowed by law?[/quote']

 

You are not paying attention. The current laws in place worked exactly as you say the new, more oppressive law would have worked. The owner / purchaser was readily identified. I hope he was held to account for his actions of providing weapons to two people WHO COULD NOT LEGALLY purchase them for a reputable dealer as evidenced by the fact that they 'could not purchase them themselves'.

 

Those who wish to do harm and have no hesitance for breaking the law broke the ones in place and would break any new laws put in place. The means do not support the ends.

 

When the 2nd amendment falls, the 1st amendment is next. This means Registration and regulation of instruments of mass media distribution. Typewriters, computers, cellphones, everything. The most recent user of this tactic was named Mao Tse Teng. Registration begets confiscation. Ask anyone in China, Australia, Great Britain, or Chicago. This means your cherished Blackberry will be, if you use it in a fashion that honks off the people in power, will be confiscated.

 

After the 1st amendment falls, the rest of them fall with it along with the Constitution.

[TommyK]

No I am not kidding' date=' those kids went to a gun show and they were refused to purchase guns, so they went home and grabbed a friend who was 18 and went back to the same dealer who sold them the weapons. The kids paid for the guns but the ownership papers where/was in the 18 year olds name. I am not trying to stop purchase of weapons; neither is this act, just trying to keep a grip on whats being sold and to who. Your right they might have found a different route to purchase those weapons that killed and wounded many others at that High school but it would have been more difficult.

[/quote']

 

Read what you wrote. HOW would the new proposed legislation have prevented harris and klebold from getting fire arms? They found a straw buyer to get them for them.... Everyone involved did the right, legal thing in the trasnaction... except the 18 year old.

 

You guys act like its a born right to own a frigging cannon and you have all rights to not being held accountable to where the weapon is located at' date=' if its safely put away or if you've given it to a friend who might whack a few. The day will come when everyone is held accountable for your actions; and the sad thing is there are so many people who treat weapons as they are to be treated with respect and use them for what they are intended either hunting or target shooting. But all it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch and everyone has to pay for the deeds of one.

[/quote']

No one does not have a born right to own a frigging cannon.

Locks on doors only keep the law bidding citizen out; yes this is true and it would be great to return to the times where no one locked their doors and all was so much better and trusting. But because of many incidents the American public is gowning tired of these accidents or what ever you call it. I call it being accountable for your actions.

 

Back then everyone was packin' heat. Doors were respected as being a man's castle because to cross it uninvited meant the spectre of staring down the barrel of a Kentucky Long Rifle.

 

 

Sad thing about Columbine is that many knew those two kids had something planned and did not act on it. The school reported it to the parents about suspect actions; the police knew about the pipe bombs but did not follow up. Mostly the parents knew about the pipe bombs and both had psyche evals and were told to take their meds; the final review of the bodies showed neither child was taking their medicines. Finally the adult who got the weapons (he did serve time for unlawful transfer of weapons to minors) denied knowledge of the planned act and could only be charged for the lessor charge. So the big picture says that this should have never happened' date=' too many warnings [/quote']

So everyone who had knowledge these kids were whacked out and stood by get a pass and law abiding citizens across the country pay the price?

 

but if their was something in place to have prevented the exchange of those weapons they might have still gotten weapons but how many sources of illegal firearms would have sold to 16 year olds? Yes they could have tried to do this with just their pipe bombs but most of those did not explode.

 

There was something in place: Laws. They broke them they ignored them as they will any subsequent laws you propose. Hooray for their ineptitude in making propane bombs. Otherwise you'd have us fingerprinted just so we can burn some hamburger.

 

I'm sorry but no one can say anything that would change my mind on this; if you want dangerous toys you should be held accountable for all aspects of that toy to include all this bill involves.

 

I don't suspect your mind is open to change. However, owners of weapons as with automobiles, are already responsible for their actions. The nickle nubbin, anonymous, 18 year old was held accountable.. not enough, in my estimation. He should be made to maintain the graves of the loved and lost until the day he dies.

[TommyK]

 

Oh I am' date=' but its not me who is not paying attention. This does not prevent the "Right to bear arms" it makes the owner more accountable. Again when our founding fathers wrote this document you had so much to worry about between Animals that would eat you, Pirates, Indians, and you might have had a few hundred foot accuracy and you needed a weapon for protection. Times have changed and I believe that document does need to be amended especially when you can reach out and touch someone at a mile plus.

 

As always you have a few people afraid of change and start screaming their rights are being offended or taken away. Change will happen, and while I dont want people to loose the ability to go hunting or target practice there are so many that do have weapons that should not and many of those people the police knew about but either failedto act on it or could not due to the rights given to that person by that document wrote and approved in 1776. Its a shame because there are so many examples I can give of public deaths that should have never happened.

 

This thread is like beating a dead horse this is my personal thoughts and others have their feelings. This is why we vote people into office, if people didn't vote then they have no say in this or any other discussion because they did not exercise their right to vote; so keep those mouths shut until its time to vote again.[/quote']

 

So you're open to changing the 1st amendment to make people who own and use computers, typewriters and other machines of information dissemination accountable for their actions by registration and threat of confiscation?

[TommyK]

Yes you should be held accountable. Just because you have a freedom of speech does not give you a right to slander someone. Thats why we have laws. Everyone should be held accountable if they do something to hurt another.

 

OK continue to quote me I'm done with this.

 

Yes you should be held accountable. Just because you have a freedom of speech does not give you a right to slander someone. Thats why we have laws. Everyone should be held accountable if they do something to hurt another.

 

OK continue to quote me I'm done with this.

 

I quote you twice because I agree with this post 100%.

 

So the 1st amendment does hold us accountable for our actions, but not the 2nd? I'm sure the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights never envisioned magical boxes that would light up and write words that could be magically flung anywhere in the world... but.... the concept is still sound As is the rest of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

 

You can't pick and choose which rights you want to abide by. It's all or nothing. By Law... if you open up The Constitution with the intent to change just one part, you actually open up the ENTIRE Constitution. That's all a despot needs to gain power. That's how a Corporal named Adolph Hitler did it.

[MReynolds]

TommyK wrote:

 

You just contradicted your own hypothesis. The Law, currently in place, was circumvented. The 18 year old broke it. The Law did not prevent anything.

 

Remember too, the primary instrument of distruction, for these horribly disturbed boys was propane. I hear no cry to limit distribution of that.

 

The school knew these cats were whacked out and did not, nor did the feel they could do anything. They just stood by and watched it happen. All because of some misperceived notion that it invaded their privacy.

 

 

How so, the act would have prevented this; the exchange of weapons to parties not allowed by law?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Oh I am' date=' but its not me who is not paying attention. [/quote']

 

guitarest...he's right you really are NOT paying attention. Especially with that gobbledeegook about how this new law would have prevented it. No, it would not have.

 

Fact: Klebold and Harris tried to buy guns on their own but couldn't due to being under 18.

 

Fact: Klebold and Harris enlisted the help of an 18 year old girl (Robyn Anderson) that one of them knew to buy the guns for them.

 

Fact: Robyn Anderson violated the Gun Control Act of 1968 when she made the purchase of the guns for Klebold and Harris.

 

So...HOW would a new law prevent the transfer of a weapon that is already not allowed to be transfered by an existing law from 1968?

 

Robyn Anderson violated the Gun Control Act of 1968...if this new law was in place she would have violated that one as well. Laws aren't for the lawbiding...they are for the lawless.