Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act 2-16-9

[glenn kangiser]

http://www.rense.com/general85/act.htm

Gun owners and people who are not criminals,  check the above out to see if there is anything to it, please.

http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=in&ned=&q=HR+45&btnG=Search+News

[MountainDon]

Well, yes this is a real bill. But let's jump right to govtrack.us where we can find the bare bones of the bill.    Click HERE

We see it was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL] with no co-sponsers. That's good.

It has been referred to a committee. The good news there is that very few bills ever make it out od a committee to be voted on.

The bad news is that this is an attempt to side step the 2nd amendment. I'll bet that your representative doesn't have a clue about this bills existence. I believe we should take a moment to notify our representatives that we know of this bill and that we are unhappy about it. It is best to be polite and refrain from invectives and name calling. Go HERE to find out where/how to bitch. Or there's an alternate site to find out how/where/whom to bitch to HERE.


Here is the summary of the bill...

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.

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

[MountainDon]

Realistically, this bill stands very little chance of getting out of committee. But!! Let's tell our friends and neighbors about this bill and show them it is relatively easy to contact your rep and tell them how you feel. It is important!!

[MountainDon]

I'm also going to be writing a letter to the local print newspaper. I see that some papers across the country have picked up on this already. It sure won't hurt to make sure they all know about it.

http://www.pineandlakes.com/stories/021109/opinion_20090211037.shtml

http://newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/10/fairbanks-group-says-no-gun-legislation/

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=12080

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_144398.asp

some of those make interesting reading. Try the last one.

[glenn kangiser]

Yeah - That was the one I read earlier - our criminals in office.

[Native_NM]

Our old NM congressional delegation (Wilson and Pete) were pro-gun.  Anybody know how our new delegation stands?

[MountainDon]

I believe Harry Teague is more gun friendly than any of the other 4, but not really sure if he's dyed-in-the-wool pro gun ownership. Bingaman and Udall are anti-gun for sure. As for Heinrich and Lujan, I could not find anything for sure with a quick Google.

[NM_Shooter]

The NRA keeps a gradebook of politicians.  I'll go check.

-f-

Grades and endorsements not available yet for 2009:  http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Default.aspx

[NM_Shooter]

BTW... 3 year NRA membership can be had for $70. 

American Rifleman alone is worth that!

-f-

[PA-Builder]

I'm a Life Member of NRA and I let my state & US representatives know that I own firearms and enjoy hunting AND I VOTE...

Send them an email expressing your dissatisfaction with this and ANY FUTURE gun legislation.

[Squirl]

I am not really worried.  There are 535 members of congress, just one can come up with whatever crazy garbage they want an float it.  A member of congress could put in a bill to dissolve the constitution and set up a theocracy, it would be sent to committee.  It is a way to get votes from their constituents.  Rush represents a poor district in Chicago.  As with most poor areas in inner cities the gun violence has spiked out of control in the past 2 years.  There constituents want to stop the violence, and they think that it is too easy for criminal too get guns.  So Rush needs to introduce gun control laws.  The more outlandish the bill the harder it would be to get passed, but he can say he did it when nothing actually gets done. 

I read the bill.  It is for any handgun and any clip fed semi-automatic rifle excluding antiques.  It does not pertain to the firearms themselves, just the people who posses them or sell them.  All people who posses one of these firearms has to have a firearms license issued by a state or the federal government. The law is retroactive and you would have 2 years to register.  I could go into all the federal requirements to register, but they are moot if you register with your state government.  If you sell a firearm in a private transaction to anyone that is not a license dealer, collector, importer or manufacturer, you have to report the details of the transaction to the state OR federal government OR licensed dealer.  The exception to this rule is lengthy so I will print it verbatim.  EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other.
It is unlawful for dealers to not maintain records or permit the governments inspection of those records.  The child access prevention clause amends the current federal firearms law by making a penalty for those recklessly disregard keeping loaded firearms around the home not locked up and the child uses those firearms to hurt or kill another person.  There is an important "and" in there so that this whole section is rendered moot if the child does not hurt or kill someone with it.  In addition there are many exceptions even to this.  There is no inspection clause.  The inspection clause section (403) is only for dealers and manufacturers of firearms.

This summary is for educational discussion only and does not constitute legal advise or establish an attorney-client privilege relationship. This is not a legal opinion.

So the original article has either a lot of falsifications or they didn't read the law.  It does need to be watched though.  Overall it seams to treat firearms like cars, you must have a license and pass a safety course to own one and you are responsible for it if you sell it or it is used for an illegal purpose.  As long as the requirements are met by your state, even if it is less stringent, the federal law does not apply.  This is very similar to automotive laws. 

[NM_Shooter]

So the original article has either a lot of falsifications or they didn't read the law.  It does need to be watched though.  Overall it seams to treat firearms like cars, you must have a license and pass a safety course to own one and you are responsible for it if you sell it or it is used for an illegal purpose.  As long as the requirements are met by your state, even if it is less stringent, the federal law does not apply.  This is very similar to automotive laws. 

I see this as a gash in the "death by a thousand cuts".  Registration of firearms is always the first step in removing them.

The automotive comparison does not carry weight.

1)  You do not have to have a license and pass a safety course to own an automobile.  You don't even have to have a license and registration to use an automobile if you operate it fully on private property, such as a ranch or farm.
2)  Owning and operating an automobile is a privilege. Owning a firearm is defined as a right as guaranteed by our constitution.
3)  If you sell a car, you are not responsible for reporting to the government the person to whom it now belongs.

I agree that this bill poses a slim chance of approval.  However, we should all express our dislike to our representatives and urge them to support the second amendment.

Regards,

Frank
4)  Vehicles kill far more people every year than guns do.

[MountainDon]

Registration of firearms is always the first step in removing them.

Sadly that's true. And that is the problem with all these little bites "they" want to take at firearms ownership.


As for noting that the proposed federal requirement would be unnecessary if you were registered with your state... This is burdensome. I live in NM where the state doesn't have any registration, no limits to the number of guns I own, no limit on the frequency of purchase, etc. There is no registration, no license, no fee. If I want to buy or sell a gun to Frank, or anyone else living in NM, I can do it and it is nobody else's business. It's between the seller and buyer. Period. That is the way it should be.

It sounds like anyone who believes that this proposed bill is okay because it contains an "out" because you already have state or local registration is already in the "death by a thousand cuts" and doesn't realize it. You are already on the slow path to final confiscation of your firearms and have accepted it.

I get a little passionate about this... don't mean to offend anyone personally.

As I said back there a few posts, there's not a snowballs chance in hell that this bill will even get out of committee. That never happens without a significant co-sponsor. This bill has none. Not at this time. However, I feel strongly that each and every time something like this comes along, no matter how slim the chances seem, your representatives must be told how we feel about it and asked point blank how they would vote if it ever came to that.

[MountainDon]

I copied this from someplace once...

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords and IEDs?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

(When they ask me why I carry a gun I tell them a cop is too heavy!)

[Squirl]

Registration of firearms is always the first step in removing them.

I get a little passionate about this... don't mean to offend anyone personally.

I agree with most of your points, even when impassioned you are always articulate and truthful.  I agree with protection of second amendment rights but when people lie to protect them, that does get me going.   Almost every provision or statement in the original rense article is blatant lie if you actually read the bill. This means that the person is either ignorant to what they are reporting or they are depending on my ignorance to further their agenda.  People like this push me away from their arguments.  Notice that all the articles are opinion op-ed pages except one.  Even the one that is, gets the detail wrong that they are not required a license for all firearms, just handguns and clip fed rifles.  A good journalist would have fact checked the false statements.

You are right, I don't see this bill as extreme as you because I have had most of these requirements almost my whole life in every state I have lived in (NJ, PA, NY).  Again this bill is a gun license, not registration bill.  If the bill was intended to register all firearms, it is not written that way.  The bill is written that if you have 10,000 hand guns and 10,000 AK-47's you only have to have one license and pass a safety course to get it.  You don't have to register any guns you already own or buy.  All sales records after the bill is passed must be on file somewhere but not with the federal government.  I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression, I do not want this bill to pass, but I like to debate the merits, goals, and problems with it. 

One of the provisions I like is the child protection provision.  This provision makes a gun owner responsible if he keeps it loaded and unprotected, and a child uses it to kill someone else.  So in the cases when a child takes a gun to school and shoots up a playground of children, the parent is held responsible for leaving the gun loaded and unlocked.  This provision is written so it only comes into play after the child hurts someone with the gun.  The exception is if you are a cop and you are in the military, then if your child uses your gun for a school shooting, you are excused.

Frank, you make excellent points.  There is a difference between possession and use.  Also owning a firearm is a right, but which firearm is not defined.  In my state, and most other that I know, the person that is buying the car is required to report it to the government, and if you are selling the car in my state you are required to tell the government.  (I have known people to be arrested for not.)  so if either one of the two parties is required, the government still has the knowledge requirement.  By the way this bill does not require you to tell the government, just a licensed dealer.

[peternap]

I'm not going to get into that Squirl, other than to say this is the very first post of yours that was poorly thought through.

[Squirl]

I realize bringing up any opinion other than outrage around a competition shooter and gun rights lobbyist might get a vitriolic response.  The point of my posts are not that I agree with the legislation, but that I am outraged by the articles of false statements about it.

[Windpower]

I had a friend that grew up in the UK

he liked to fish and hunt over here

He always said he had no problem with being licensed to have a gun

"people in England can have guns too but they are licensed"  this was obviously quite a few years back

of course we now know just where the people in the UK that 'had no problem with being licensed to own a gun' are


they're even putting people away for having toy guns


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4119700.stm

Ok, well, he only had to serve 3 months for the plastic gun

do we really want to go down this road .....

[kenhill]

You may pass the guns down through the family without reporting the exchanges, but to possess them, you must have a firearms license.  In addition, the Attorney General can inspect the paperwork at dealers and manufacturers without cause.  We know from history that Obama, his chief of staff and Illinois will be inflicting harassment on the firearms industry.  Frivolous lawsuits will be back to try and drive manufacturers out of business.  Isn't it interesting that employees of the government are exempt but citizens are not.  It sounds a lot like a dictatorship to make sure we are subjugated.  And I will have to be fingerprinted like a criminal to possess a pistol my grandfather bought in the 1890's?

This is a dangerous time for freedom.

[NM_Shooter]

One of the provisions I like is the child protection provision.  This provision makes a gun owner responsible if he keeps it loaded and unprotected, and a child uses it to kill someone else.  So in the cases when a child takes a gun to school and shoots up a playground of children, the parent is held responsible for leaving the gun loaded and unlocked.  This provision is written so it only comes into play after the child hurts someone with the gun.  The exception is if you are a cop and you are in the military, then if your child uses your gun for a school shooting, you are excused.

I would rather see more of a global parental responsibility law, not just one directed at guns.  So if a kid gets into booze at your house, drives and kills someone, the parent is liable (actually, I think they may be already).  Or if a kid is a bully, or whatever.  I would just prefer that we don't single out guns in particular. 

I 'sorta think of this along the same lines as our recent cell phone laws here in ABQ.  If you are caught driving while using a handset, you now get fined.  We already have this sort of thing covered under distracted or reckless driving, but it is a lot easier to prosecute a specific offense.  I see other folks much more recklessly driving... balancing a coffee while putting on makeup, eating a cheeseburger and working an ipod, digging through paperwork, whatever.  But an alert, attentive driver using a cell phone is an automatic offense. 

I wish we could enforce the laws that we have without targeting specific objects.  Especially firearms.  But I'm a gun nut enthusiast ... go figure. 

[glenn kangiser]

A licensed dealer is an agent of the government by that license and records would of course be turned in to the government at their request - as in for the removal of the guns and location of the owners.   We cannot trust them - let them take the guns from the criminals - not the citizens.

In the case of martial law during and caused by criminal actions of the Fed and their world banker cohorts they would have a list of pick up addresses.  Make them work for it.

[Squirl]

I can see the goal in the legislation.  There is a current loophole that felons, people with restraining orders, and the criminally insane can currently purchase firearms in a private transaction.  By having the reporting requirement the background of the people can be checked.  What can be used for debate is whether prevention or penalty is the better way to keep guns out of the people's hands that shouldn't have them.

[peternap]

I can see the goal in the legislation.  There is a current loophole that felons, people with restraining orders, and the criminally insane can currently purchase firearms in a private transaction.  By having the reporting requirement the background of the people can be checked.  What can be used for debate is whether prevention or penalty is the better way to keep guns out of the people's hands that shouldn't have them.

I said I wasn't going to get into it...but

Squirl, lets not discuss the loophole. That's always a bad subject and we just got through kicking the loophole criers out of our state for another year.

Suppose the law were passed. Would that stem felons or other criminals with guns. No! Guns would actually become more available and less traceable.

Just so you can't say it's a far fetched theory, I will only talk about things I've done (Legally but in the communist states with similar registration, it;s done illegally every day)

I gave a demonstration for several members of the General assembly years ago.

In ten minutes, I built a workable zip gun. In two hours I built a workkable semi automatic (full auto is easier but would have been illegal)

In 4 hours I built a complete AR15 using a precast 80% receiver.

in an 8 hour workday I built a complete AR15 with a high grade receiver I milled from scratch.

In another 8 hour day I milled and built a Colt 45 ACP clone.

All functioned with minor tuning and cost was less than $100.00 for the highest end (AR15).

Now I'm not a firearms prodigy. There are homegrown gunsmiths all over the country that can do the same thing and in the case of this law, get rich. Beats selling dope.

YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY. CRIMINALS WILL BE CRIMINALS AND FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

[NM_Shooter]

I think the goal of the legislation is primarily to place restrictions on lawful gun owners and eventually get us to where no one is allowed to have any guns. 

We have laws in place already that do not allow felons to own guns.  This does not stop them.  Making law abiding citizens report transactions still won't stop them.  Felons will either steal or will buy stolen guns. 

We have become much too politically correct.  We now punish innocent people by writing new laws restricting freedoms.  How about this... let's not increase the restriction on law abiding citizens in order to try to prevent felons from possessing firearms.  Let's increase the penalty that felons have to deal with if caught breaking the law!

Personally, I believe that if a someone is convicted of a felony, their American constitutional rights are suspended during the duration of their incarceration phase.  Ship them off to Mexico and pay mexico $25 a day to watch them.  Audits of living condition optional.

[NM_Shooter]

I gave a demonstration for several members of the General assembly years ago.

In ten minutes, I built a workable zip gun. In two hours I built a workkable semi automatic (full auto is easier but would have been illegal)

In 4 hours I built a complete AR15 using a precast 80% receiver.

in an 8 hour workday I built a complete AR15 with a high grade receiver I milled from scratch.

In another 8 hour day I milled and built a Colt 45 ACP clone.

Peter, can I come over to play?

-f-