Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

[guthook]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=13702&highlight=registration

I can't read this shit.

Novus, what does Sec. 601 mean in dummy terms?

 

[vette97]

$25, fingerprints, passport photos, other info required, every 5 years, and the AG still decides whether or not to approve you. Some of the penalties in this bill include fines and up to 10 years in prison!

 

[novus collectus]

I can't read this shit.

Novus, what does Sec. 601 mean in dummy terms?

NOt totally sure, but I have seen it in other laws before and I always understood it to mean that if a state has their own laws more restrictive, then the fed law will not prevent it. For instance, if a state law said all guns had to be re-registered once a week under penalty of death, the fed law would not stop it....or something.

 

[bluecollarkid]

As it goes - a state may have laws that are more restrictive than the federal government but not less restrictive. It's been a big issue with automobile emissions lately. But Novus is right as far as the law goes. Not sure about Sec. 601 though. I will have to look it up.\

I looked at Sec. 601 and that's what it means. Think of Fed law as a baseline from which all states can further restrict as they desire but not have less restrictions than the Feds require.

 

[guthook]

That's what I was afraid it said. Hoping for the other way around.

The doublespeak makes my head spin.

 

[K-Romulus]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=13702&highlight=registration

Booo0 - weak search-fu strikes again

 

[vette97]

Crap, I just re-read this bill closely, and this is the section that's complete BS: You can't POSSESS a handgun, or any semi-automatic that takes a clip or magazine, without a federal license. If you do possess either, you have to obtain the license within 2 years of it being enacted as law.

In order to get the license, you need to send in
- a passport photo
- application
- thumb print
- attestation from your State that says you're not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm
- certification that you won't allow gun to be possessed by person under 18
- certificate of successful completion of written exam covering
- safe storage of firearms, especially in vicinity of person under 18
- safe handling of firearms
- use of firearms in the home
- legal responsibility of firearms owners, laws, etc.
- any other subject the Attorney General wants in there
- authorization by applicant, releasing mental health records to AG

 

[zoostation]

Given the current crew soon-to-be in charge, and with the Senate already looking like 59-41 (with Franken stealing his Minnesota seat) and being potentially filibuster-proof in two years with Republican retirements, national licensing of handguns wouldn't surprise me if it passed.

The same line of thought that "the economy is so bad the dems won't worry about gun control" can also translate into "the economy is so bad the dems can sneak in all kinds of extremist BS without most people caring."

 

[t3tech]

My first question was what the hell gives the fed. gov. authority to even think of something like this... then I took a look at it. Of course, Commerce Clause abuse. I already knew, but thought maybe, just maybe, there was some other reason cited for the Congressional Authority on this one.

This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, but hey probably at least half the laws on the books now under authority of the Commerce Clause have nothing to do with it either.

Update: This would likely not even make it through a judicial committee, but I guess that never stops some Congress critters from trying. I just came across US vs Lopez and it would appear that this ruling would preclude such a law being possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

The Supreme Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. (A later case, United States v. Morrison (2000), ruled that Congress could not make such laws even when there was evidence of aggregate effect.)

 

[Norton]

threads merged

 

[jpk1md]

My first question was what the hell gives the fed. gov. authority to even think of something like this... then I took a look at it. Of course, Commerce Clause abuse. I already knew, but thought maybe, just maybe, there was some other reason cited for the Congressional Authority on this one.

This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, but hey probably at least half the laws on the books now under authority of the Commerce Clause have nothing to do with it either.

I believe that if SCOTUS sided with Lopez in declaring that Congress could not ban firearms possession in schools under ICC that it would come to a similar ruling if they attempted this.

It would however require that someone or persons challenge it.

Lets just fight the crap out of it so it never comes to that ok?

 

[kohburn]

horrible potential for abuse

 

[novus collectus]

My first question was what the hell gives the fed. gov. authority to even think of something like this... then I took a look at it. Of course, Commerce Clause abuse. I already knew, but thought maybe, just maybe, there was some other reason cited for the Congressional Authority on this one.

This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, but hey probably at least half the laws on the books now under authority of the Commerce Clause have nothing to do with it either.

Update: This would likely not even make it through a judicial committee, but I guess that never stops some Congress critters from trying. I just came across US vs Lopez and it would appear that this ruling would preclude such a law being possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

The Supreme Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. (A later case, United States v. Morrison (2000), ruled that Congress could not make such laws even when there was evidence of aggregate effect.)

Even if they could provide evidence, there is something that would be odd about their claim about cost to society....

If they included suicide attempts,
and if they ignored that suicide attempts would be tried by other means,
and if they ignored that even if all guns were removed from criminal's hands there would still be injuries serious enough to send people to the hospital by them still committing their crimes of violence,
and if they ignored the number of innocent people not injured because they shot the criminal,
and if they included the number of criminals injured stopped by someone with a gun, then the number of people injured or killed by a gunshot that number is 100,000 (30,000 deaths and 70,000 serious and minor injuries and this includes people given stitches and sent home in hours).
Total medical costs may be one to two billion.

If they ignore that a good portion of the people shot during violence were criminals and were not working anyway,
and if they ignore that a good portion of those shot to death were criminals and we save money by not having to house and feed them in prison,
and if they ignore that some of those people would have gotten sick or injured and missed work that year even if they did not get shot,
and if they ignored the number of people who shot the criminal making work instead of missing it by being injured by the criminal,
and if they ignore that many of the people injured or killed were either too old to be in the workforce, or too suicidally depressed to be working,
and once again, if they ignore that even if we removed all guns from society there would still be people injured and or killed by criminals and suicide by other means,
then total cost to society, including the medical costs and lost time from work, could be by inflated estimated to be in the tens of billions to maybe a hundred billion at the highest and craziest anti's estimate.

Cost of this licsesning and registration as I tried to estimate earlier is five billion to sixty billion in administrative costs and fees alone. This does not include the cost due to less firearms commerce, loss of property by people failing to register, boating accidents, increased incaceration costs due to people not getting licenses to own the property they own now legally, etc.

If the financial cost to society at the least is the same with or without the licensing, then how can they justify it with even the most outrageous numbers they can bandy about?
.....but of course we know they will try regardless.

At the very best they can hope for is that their ridiculous claim of 100 billion dollar cost to the economy a year can be reduced ten percent by licensing because even they could not claim that all gun crime injuries and deaths, and all gun suicide attempts will be prevented by this.....I mean just look at Canada, they made registration of all firearms mandatory thirteen years ago and have way more stringent education, background checks, storage and use requirements than in this bill makes, and yet their murder rate is similar and their number of suicides by all means increased with the number of firearms suicides and attempts still prevalent.
Their licensing and registration at the optmistic most reduced the impact to their economy only fractionally, but yet cost them billions to impliment.

 

[Norton]

Ya know.....I think that this would be a perfect opportunity for all citizens in the 1st Maryland Congressional District to contact their newly minted Congressman, Frank Kratovil and ask for his view on this matter.

Simply ask for his position on this bill. Let's get him on record.

 

[vette97]

Bobby Rush is a Democrat from Chicago. The bill is written in the name of a Chicago child that was shot. The verbiage in this bill already mirrors what Obama said he wanted during the campaign and previous interviews. Obama probably helped craft the bill!

From barackobama.com:
As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

From ontheissues.org:
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

 

[novus collectus]

Ya know.....I think that this would be a perfect opportunity for all citizens in the 1st Maryland Congressional District to contact their newly minted Congressman, Frank Kratovil and ask for his view on this matter.

Simply ask for his position on this bill. Let's get him on record.

Perfect idea!

 

[Pushrod]

Wow, if this bill were to pass it would make criminals out of a lot of decent folk in this country!

 

[novus collectus]

Wow, if this bill were to pass it would make criminals out of a lot of decent folk in this country!

I think that is the idea.

 

[Norton]

Wow, if this bill were to pass it would make criminals out of a lot of decent folk in this country!

looks like Ayn Rand wasn't quite so whacko after all.....read my sig line.

 

[SigMatt]

If this law were to pass, I recommend a simple reaction: Do nothing.

Do not comply. If even 10 percent of the roughly 80 million gun owners simply decided to not do anything, the courts would be overwhelmed and unable to function if they decided to pursue the violators. Such laws are meant to destroy firearms ownership in this country. Don't let them.

In Canada when the passed the long gun registry, which had forced compliance on the part of the owners (stupid since the RCMP had all the registration certificates done at the time of purchase and simply couldn't be bothered to do the work themselves), many owners didn't comply. That despite several amnesties and extensions to get them to do so. Estimates place total compliance at around 20 percent.

With the vast majority of gun owners simply ignoring the government, the provinces asked for guidance. Especially in the West where compliance was very low. They indicated that if they were to prosecute the gun owners for non-compliance, the court system would grind a halt. So they asked the Federal government, who had imposed the law, what they should do. The Fed said "prosecute". The provinces said, "Fine, fork over the money to build new courthouses and prisons because otherwise all our current prosecutions will literally grind to a halt.". The Fed replied, "Uhhh, ummm, do what you think is best.".

To date, I believe no non-compliant gun owner has been prosecuted for failing to voluntary register their guns. The very lack of compliance is what has led to calls and action to dismantle the "ineffective registry".

That's in Canada. As I said, even if just 10 percent did it here, they'd never succeed. The public outcry would be so great and cut across so many political lines it would be suicidal, politically, to attempt it. If it was say 40-50 percent, forget it. You'd have police officers either laughing in the faces of the people giving orders to arrest these "lawbreakers" or making sure their affairs were in order.

This law, to many, would be the drawing of a line in the sand and a prelude to a shadow Civil war. It would be the realization that, yes, the government is really out for your guns. Leftists wouldn't be able to hide behind that semantic argument anymore. I'd argue don't comply and force the government to act and show their true intentions towards the citizenry.

Not that I fear it would come to that. I think it would be very hard, albeit not impossible, to justify this law as Constitutional. Sure, anti-gunners will cherry-pick Heller to state that registration is not Unconstitutional while ignoring the totality of the law itself. You cannot license fundamental rights. If this law passes and does pass Constitutional muster, I'd argue non-violent, non-compliance is our most effective weapon.

Matt