maybe a repost but still worthy of another..

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

H.R.45
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House
)

 

Please resubmit your search

Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information

 

"SUMMARY AS OF:
1/6/2009--Introduced.
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."

 

Sounds like Illinois.

Having dealt with that system so long, to me this doesn't sound problematic.

I don't think it's anything to cry over.

 

Sounds like or laws here.

 

I wouldn't shrug this off too lightly ....note the implication I highlighted in red above. It basically says you CANNOT POSSESS A FIREARM WITHOUT A LICENSE. To the best of my knowledge many states have no restrictions on POSSESSING firearms, just limiting what you can/cannot do with them. Big difference.

An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.

 

Here you can't buy one unless you have passed a saftey course of some sort. A hunting licsense works for long guns, but for handguns now, you must also pass a written test at the time of purchase.

I am not shrugging it off and as such, continue to support organizations who collectively fight for our rights and I do my best to support the firearms indusrty by purchseing their products as often as money allows. At this time, however, I am in the market for safe number 3 and more reloading supplies.

 

Good info here, this is how they work...... Bury the details in the fine print and hope you don't notice, your freedoms being chipped away one small paragraph at a time. The NRA is one lobby group that does not waste its members money and is VERY effective, time for all gun owners to join up and stop this creeping assault on the 2nd amendment.

 

Amen to that!

 

I hear what you're saying Alch, but I live in Illinois, in Cook county. I can't even walk into a store without that card, unless I'm with someone else who has one and I promise not to touch a single thing.

It was easy to get, and honestly I believe there are some people that probably shouldn't have the right to own.

Maybe it's just because I'm so used to it, but it doesn't sound like they're trying to keep people from buying guns or owning them, they just want to keep track of the people that do. Maybe that seems too big brother for some folks, but it's the way of the world.

Owners in compliance with the law should have nothing to worry about, right?

 

Quite agree there, but it should not be that we license those who want to own, but by due process remove the right from those who for whatever reason, by some action, forgo that right.

Wrong, each new law is a further erosion of 2nd amendment rights. And why do "they" need to keep track of those who have guns? Only real reason to know where the guns are is when you go to round them up.


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .....disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."
Cesare Beccaria (1735-1794) Italian nobleman, criminologist, and penal reformer
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--><o></o>

 

Alch,

First, let me say thank you for discussing this in an open and friendly manner. Too often these discussions end up a giant melee of personal opinion, and nothing really comes to light.

There is another reason the Fed might want to track these things: taxes. In addition to having a database of owners (which isn't in itself a bad thing) it would allow the fed to put a special tax on top of your purchase price, either a percentage or a fixed amount. It's not uncommon in other countries (although I'm not sure if it would be the first time it applied to firearms). In this economy, the government could use the extra money, and I could see this as being a potential revenue generator.

Handguns are completely banned in several countries. We're still among the fortunate in the world to be allowed to own something that we can use for sport, or to protect ourselves and our families.

There are potential pros and cons to any database like this. If guns are tracked, and someone you know is killed by a firearm, and the owner purchased the arm in accordance to the law, justice would probably be much more swift.

I'm aware that the majority of gun crime is caused by those folks who have no care for the law, and use unlawful means to obtain weapons, but some gun crime is committed by those who obtained them legally. Some of those people can be aprehended via this registration system, and perhaps others could be stopped from purchasing the arms altogether.

I think we're after a common goal. You and I both want our guns, and respect our rights to keep them. I'm no fan of over-legeslature, but as long as bills and such don't hamper my ability to own, for the most part, they aren't anything to worry about. If I have to carry another card or wait an extra 5 days, I'm okay with that.

As for people worried about being in a computer somewhere...ha, you're already in probably 20 different ones.

 

I think maybe they should just limit low much ammo a person can have. For example for use against a home invasion its very easy to see that no one would ever NEED more than several rounds. Why not limit it to something fair like 20 rounds. No one can justify more except the ones who target shoot. If you target shoot ok you can buy boxes of low power rounds maked for target use only if you give an ID and the problem is solved. Anyone wanting a more than 20 regular rounds can pay a special tax .....Sounds good to me.

 

Dude, are you serious?

The 2nd Amendment wasn't/isn't about hunting or target shooting. It is entirely about protecting ourselves from the tyranny of government. It is the amendment that guarantees all others, and that's where I fault the founding fathers for not putting it FIRST.

Every single gun round-up in the history of the world started with registration, the most significant of which was in the 1930's in Germany.

No IDs, no ammo limits, this is a free country, and it takes armed citizens to keep it free. Criminals and tyrants don't give a crap about whether the law says there is a 20-round or 10,000-round limit on ammo--they'll break that law either way.

We frogs need to shoot our way out of this pot of water!

Jason

 

Well, when others were getting on your case, I was cutting you some slack, but, durn it, you went and done it......I'll bet you think that none of the gun owners who keep a weapon for self/home defense ever PRACTICE with it?
Some people can head out to the range and burn thru 50 or 100 rounds in an afternoon. 2o round limit indeed.....

News Flash: - the inmates really are running the asylum.