2nd Amendment attack: Little attention vrs Stimulus bill

[sbark]

http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_St... (http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_Stimulus_Bill_Congress_Seeks_to_O verturn_the_Second_Amendment11500.shtml)


Under Cover of a "Stimulus" Bill, Congress Seeks to Overturn the Second Amendment
By Ken Anderson
Feb 12, 2009 - 10:41:20 AM

Email this article
Printer friendly page


In a Bill introduced on the first day of the present session of Congress, with no coverage from the mainstream media, H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) targets gun owners in the United States. While everyone's attention was on the bogus "stimulus" plan to print and spend trillions of tax dollars, this legislation is worming its way through the House and Senate.

This Bill will strip us of the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. It requires the registration of all new guns during the first two years after enactment. After two years, the new law goes retroactive, mandating that all firearms in a citizen's possession be registered, not just those purchased after the enactment of the law. This apparently applies to antique firearms as well.

.......more in link........

[MetalHead]

http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_St... (http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_Stimulus_Bill_Congress_Seeks_to_O verturn_the_Second_Amendment11500.shtml)


Under Cover of a "Stimulus" Bill, Congress Seeks to Overturn the Second Amendment
By Ken Anderson
Feb 12, 2009 - 10:41:20 AM

Email this article
Printer friendly page


In a Bill introduced on the first day of the present session of Congress, with no coverage from the mainstream media, H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) targets gun owners in the United States. While everyone's attention was on the bogus "stimulus" plan to print and spend trillions of tax dollars, this legislation is worming its way through the House and Senate.

This Bill will strip us of the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. It requires the registration of all new guns during the first two years after enactment. After two years, the new law goes retroactive, mandating that all firearms in a citizen's possession be registered, not just those purchased after the enactment of the law. This apparently applies to antique firearms as well.

.......more in link........

Heard about it this morning...BrainPaint,what do you make of this?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Heard about it this morning...BrainPaint,what do you make of this?

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

[Kangaroo]

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

See this is how it starts you slowly give up your freedoms because it is just something small no big deal.

People keep blowing stuff like this off but all the signs point to the Government taking over.

[CowboyWay]

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

You know this is so funny.

I enjoy a good firearm. And when I go into local gun stores, I see stickers, buttons, T shirts, bumper stickers all saying how Obama is going to take away every gun on the planet.

It just makes me laugh, laugh, laugh.

Paranoia runs rampant in these stores, and most of the people who work in them are lucky to have GED's.

I got a magazine I subscribe too in the mail the other day "Guns and Ammo" or "Combat guns", I don't remember cause I subscribe to both. Anyway, the editorial was all about how if you've ever wanted an assault rifle, you need to buy it NOW. Not next week, not next month, buy it NOW, because Obama was going to take them off the shelves tomorrow.

I just shook my head and laughed. How much do you think this editor took in form of a kickback from some gun manufacturers?

Fear sells. Always has. And Paranoia sells like hotcakes.

[DIAF]

You know this is so funny.

I enjoy a good firearm. And when I go into local gun stores, I see stickers, buttons, T shirts, bumper stickers all saying how Obama is going to take away every gun on the planet.

It just makes me laugh, laugh, laugh.

Paranoia runs rampant in these stores, and most of the people who work in them are lucky to have GED's.

I got a magazine I subscribe too in the mail the other day "Guns and Ammo" or "Combat guns", I don't remember cause I subscribe to both. Anyway, the editorial was all about how if you've ever wanted an assault rifle, you need to buy it NOW. Not next week, not next month, buy it NOW, because Obama was going to take them off the shelves tomorrow.

I just shook my head and laughed. How much do you think this editor took in form of a kickback from some gun manufacturers?

Fear sells. Always has. And Paranoia sells like hotcakes.

Every gun enthusiast I have ever known has been like this. My uncle is one of them. I don't know why.

[ThaBigP]

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

Must you register your name in a registry when you open your mouth to offer a political opinion, and keep a log with the government regarding all posts, statements (written or otherwise) that in any way can be construed as political? Under penalty of law?

Must you register not only to vote, but indicate for whom you voted and the purpose for that vote? Under penalty of law?

You see, you'd throw a Biblical hissy fit if you were made to register and enumerate the usage of any of your other rights. Somehow, when it comes to the right to defend yourself, you have no problem with it.

[ThaBigP]

How about this, for the "so what?" crowd:

You must register with the government indicating your religion, and keep that registry up to date with information regarding your religious activities.

You must register your news sources of choice, and keep that list up to date with the government. You must list all articles and opinions you've read, and indicate to what degree you agree or disagree.

You must register with the government indicating any groups or organization to which you belong, the nature of that group or organization, and the purpose for your joining.

You must register with the government indicating your position regarding the quartering of troops in your home. If you disagree with quartering, you must indicate your reason.

You must register with the government all posessions you own, the manner in which you came to aquire them, the purpose for keeping them, and where you keep them.

If you intend to never testify against yourself at trial, you must first register. You will also be required to explain the reason you intend to not testify against yourself.

You must register to request that any trial in which you may be a defendant you wish to have a jury trial consisting of your peers. You must explain the purpose for this request.

Just going down the Bill of Rights here....

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://popseoul.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/0510-cocoa-puffs.jpg

[ThaBigP]

http://popseoul.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/0510-cocoa-puffs.jpg

I hate to do this, my friend (really do), but you're a liar. If they made you register and enumerate the usage of *any* of your other rights, you'd be right there with the CocoaPuffs bird....shouting from the rafters. You simply believe that the 2nd Amendment is expendable. THAT is the real issue here.

Perhaps "liar" is a bit strong in language. I'll settle for "hypocrite"...

[BrAinPaiNt]

I hate to do this, my friend (really do), but you're a liar. If they made you register and enumerate the usage of *any* of your other rights, you'd be right there with the CocoaPuffs bird....shouting from the rafters. You simply believe that the 2nd Amendment is expendable. THAT is the real issue here.

Perhaps "liar" is a bit strong in language. I'll settle for "hypocrite"...

Where have I complained about registering to vote?
I don't go to church so I don't care and if I wanted to I would register with a church.

I think you are about ignorant about how I feel about registering to vote or other areas or how I feel about guns.

I think we have the right to go and buy a gun, I don't think the government is going to come to my house and take my weapons nor yours.

So how bout you know more about me before slinging out things Like I am a liar, you know nothing about...aka don't be ignorant.

[ThaBigP]

I'll also add:

How in the hell can anybody honestly chalk this up to simple paranoia? Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear. Irrational, as in there is no logical basis for that fear. I got the CoCoaPuffs bird for suggesting that there *could* be restrictions on other rights.

Well...

So McCain/Feingold, a statute that makes certain political speech illegal if it appears on the air within 60 days of an election, was never law of the land?

The Fairness Doctrine, another statute regulating political speech and criminalizing speech that doesn't fit the template of the law, was never nor will ever be law of the land?

Woodrow Wilson did *not* imprison dissenters?

FDR did *not* round up over a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans and shuffle them into concentration camps?

Who, exactly, is the CoCoaPuffs bird? Or, more precisely, the historically ignorant ostrich?

[ThaBigP]

Where have I complained about registering to vote?
I don't go to church so I don't care and if I wanted to I would register with a church.

I think you are about ignorant about how I feel about registering to vote or other areas or how I feel about guns.

I think we have the right to go and buy a gun, I don't think the government is going to come to my house and take my weapons nor yours.

So how bout you know more about me before slinging out things Like I am a liar, you know nothing about...aka don't be ignorant.

http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

There you go again, making up stuff I did not say.

I did not say "oh my God! They may make you register to vote!"

What
I
Said
Was
(and READ this time)

What if they made you NOT ONLY register to vote, but indicate in a federal registry for WHOM you voted and WHY.

Edit: There it is... you don't care about the abolition (or restrictions/registration) of rights you chose not to exercise. JUST LIKE I SAID...you think it's expendable. You said so yourself, in so many words ("I don't care").

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

There you go again, making up stuff I did not say.

I did not say "oh my God! They may make you register to vote!"

What
I
Said
Was
(and READ this time)

What if they made you NOT ONLY register to vote, but indicate in a federal registry for WHOM you voted and WHY.

Edit: There it is... you don't care about the abolition (or restrictions/registration) of rights you chose not to exercise. JUST LIKE I SAID...you think it's expendable. You said so yourself.

Are you on drugs...I ask seriously or are you really one of those tin foil hat types. Again I am not joking.

I really think you need to look into valium or maybe something stronger.

Psst...registering for a gun...registering to vote is morphed into registering to tell who I voted for...AND WHY!?!?

I really do not know what your damage is, but I don't care to be called a liar by some guy on the internet that does not even know me or how I feel on something.

Maybe you are just better off slowing your role and go seek some help.

[ThaBigP]

Where have I complained about registering to vote?
I don't go to church so I don't care and if I wanted to I would register with a church.

I think you are about ignorant about how I feel about registering to vote or other areas or how I feel about guns.

I think we have the right to go and buy a gun, I don't think the government is going to come to my house and take my weapons nor yours.

So how bout you know more about me before slinging out things Like I am a liar, you know nothing about...aka don't be ignorant.


Also, notice how you use the language of a voluntary program to refute a statutory one... "If I wanted to...". We're not talking about registries people can sign up for...if they *want* to. With the government standing there batting its eyes saying "pretty please???". It's force, under penalty of law.

[ThaBigP]

Are you on drugs...I ask seriously or are you really one of those tin foil hat types. Again I am not joking.

I really think you need to look into valium or maybe something stronger.

Psst...registering for a gun...registering to vote is morphed into registering to tell who I voted for...AND WHY!?!?

I really do not know what your damage is, but I don't care to be called a liar by some guy on the internet that does not even know me or how I feel on something.

Maybe you are just better off slowing your role and go seek some help.

Now I'm calling you a liar for real. You are DELIBERATELY misquoting and distorting what I say. Ignore.

[ThaBigP]

Can't ignore a mod, apparently.

Oh well.

Done reading your posts...then.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Now I'm calling you a liar for real. You are DELIBERATELY misquoting and distorting what I say. Ignore.

Please do ignore me because I don't feel like suffering some tin foil conspiracy dude calling other people liars while on some kind of rubber room roid rage.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Can't ignore a mod, apparently.

Oh well.

Done reading your posts...then.

:laugh2: :laugh2:

[ThaBigP]

:laugh2: :laugh2:
:whip: :chainsaw: :chop: :spanking: :clubbed: :beer1: (this last one is me going out drinking tonight):cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

:whip: :chainsaw: :chop: :spanking: :clubbed: :beer1: (this last one is me going out drinking tonight):cool:

And you call me a liar?

[ThaBigP]

And you call me a liar?

Actually, as a matter of fact, I *am* going drinking.

Oh, you meant the not reading your posts bit anymore?

Yeah. I lied. :laugh2:

[ScipioCowboy]

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the wiretapping endeavors undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, it's not as if anyone's Constitutional rights were actually circumvented, correct?

You're certainly free to attribute disparaging emotions and motivations to those who would oppose this measure, but their concerns remain valid...just as the concerns of those who opposed the Patriot Act are very valid.

[ThaBigP]

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the wiretapping endeavors undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, it's not as if anyone's rights were actually circumvented, correct?

You're certainly free to attribute disparaging emotions and motivations to those who would oppose this measure, but their concerns remain valid...just as the concerns of those who opposed the Patriot Act remain very valid.

Ugh, I tried to get through to Brain about the registration and enumeration of the exercise of rights...he's the proverbial horse led to water refusing to drink.

But not me, I'm headed to a bar...:D

[BrAinPaiNt]

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the wiretapping endeavors undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, it's not as if anyone's rights were actually circumvented, correct?

You're certainly free to attribute disparaging emotions and motivations to those who would oppose this measure, but their concerns remain valid...just as the concerns of those who opposed the Patriot Act remain very valid.

I never registered to have phones wire tapped...and apparently the government was not registered, or getting the paper work through a judge, to wire tap either. Heck I was only made aware of it later. However in this case my right to bear arms is not being stripped away...it would just require me to register the gun. Just like I have to register to vote. Just like I must register to sign up for this forum, or a new email address online somewhere, or to take a criminal background check for some jobs, or to take a drug test for some jobs and a multitude of other things...but they give you the choice to do that. If I don't want to register to get a gun...I don't have to get a gun. Or I can buy one from someone without any paperwork and do not register it once I get it.

The whole argument I made weeks ago was that I do not think they will be coming around door to door to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY. To which some of these guys want to be a wise guy and act like that means I am totally against the 2nd amendment and hate all gun owners and think nobody should have guns and whatever.



Nice try though.:D

[ScipioCowboy]

Ugh, I tried to get through to Brain about the registration and enumeration of the exercise of rights...he's the proverbial horse led to water refusing to drink.

But not me, I'm headed to a bar...:D

I just returned from watching the Friday the 13th remake. So my mind has been numbed in an entirely different way.;)

[sbark]

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

Paranoia:lmao2: ----Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammo !!! ---some things in life you dont leave to chance.....and one of the main things is trusting a politican .......

"just registering"---isnt that like the frog sitting in warm water, waiting for it to boil?

This bill has more meat in it that simply that...

Under the provisions of the Bill, gun owners will be required to go through a complete renewal process every five years, any failure to comply carrying stiff penalties which would include the confiscation of the firearms and jail time, with penalties as high as ten years in some cases.

The Bill also authorizes government searches without a warrant, creating a new federal bureaucracy to monitor the possession of firearms by citizens of the United States.

.....with that much paperwork pushed around by that many beuracrats....it would make instant criminals of 85% of the 70 million gun owners in the USA

[BrAinPaiNt]

I just returned from watching the Friday the 13th remake. So my mind has been numbed in an entirely different way.;)

I don't get the idea of remaking halloween and friday the 13th. I hope they don't start remaking all of the bad sequels to those movies as well.:laugh2:

[ScipioCowboy]

I never registered to have phones wire tapped...and apparently the government was not registered, or getting the paper work through a judge, to wire tap either. Heck I was only made aware of it later. However in this case my right to bear arms is not being stripped away...it would just require me to register the gun. Just like I have to register to vote. Just like I must register to sign up for this forum, or a new email address online somewhere, or to take a criminal background check for some jobs, or to take a drug test for some jobs and a multitude of other things...but they give you the choice to do that. If I don't want to register to get a gun...I don't have to get a gun. Or I can buy one from someone without any paperwork and do not register it once I get it.


Nice try though.:D

You completely dodged the issue: Did you or did you not support the Bush administration's attempts to engage in wiretapping?

It's a very simple question, but your inability to answer it is quite revealing.:D

Furthermore, your comparisons aren't really applicable. This forum and the majority of online email providers are private entities. This registration is being carried out by the federal government. Also, drug use is not a Constitutional right. It's illegal, in fact--hence the reason federal employers are allowed to drug screen. Last I checked, firearm ownership is not illegal.

People register to vote so that no one can vote twice and, thereby, diminish the voice of others--which is antithetical to the Constitution. However, the fact that I may own two guns does not diminish anyone's voice or violate anyone's rights.

[MetalHead]

BP,I specifically called you out on this one because of the mockery you made about it a while back.
Paranoid my behind,this will come down.
Keep looking the other way.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You completely dodged the issue: Did you or did you not support the Bush administration's attempts to engage in wiretapping?

It's a very simple question, but your inability to answer it is quite revealing.:D

Furthermore, your comparisons aren't really applicable. This forum and the majority of online email providers are private entities. This registration is being carried out by the federal government. Also, drug use is not a Constitutional right. It's illegal, in fact--hence the reason federal employers are allowed to drug screen. Last I checked, firearm ownership is not illegal.

People register to vote so that no one can vote twice and, thereby, diminish the voice of others--which is antithetical to the Constitution. However, the fact that I may own two guns does not diminish anyone's voice or violate anyone's rights.

The problem I have with the wire tapping was that it was done without warrants either pre or post. If they acquired a warrant, as I have noted many times in the past, it would be ok. I feel the ONLY viable reason to not have a warrant was because they wanted no paper trail or accountability. Now some have argued that they could not get a warrant in time so they just decided not to do that but they don't have to get a warrant prior to it...they have x amount of days AFTER the wire tap to get a warrant through fisa.

So...again...nice try.

[Yoshimitsu]

Ummm

Some of you are paranoid. No different than the New World Order conspiracy theorist. Whats wrong with Registering your guns? They aren't taking them away they are just simply making them get registered. You know kinda like your car being registered?

But the government is going to take your car away right? :rolleyes:

[MetalHead]

Ummm

Some of you are paranoid. No different than the New World Order conspiracy theorist. Whats wrong with Registering your guns? They aren't taking them away they are just simply making them get registered. You know kinda like your car being registered?

But the government is going to take your car away right? :rolleyes:

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

BP,I specifically called you out on this one because of the mockery you made about it a while back.
Paranoid my behind,this will come down.
Keep looking the other way.

You called me out because you are under the delusion that I am against the 2nd amendment and don't think you should have guns. Which is not the case.

It gets tiring having to repeat my stance over and over because some people just don't want to actually read or hear what I have to say but automatically take things to the extreme due to their silliness.

I do not see them going door to door taking EVERYONE'S guns no matter how much you guys spout your paranoid lunacy. Why...because I actually have faith in the American people...unlike some of you.

That or you guys are just a bunch of flat out pansies and would just give up your guns when they came door to door since you are all so willing to believe that bs. Or as some of you like to say...what are you so worried about if you have done nothing wrong.

[vta]

The problem I have with the wire tapping was that it was done without warrants either pre or post. If they acquired a warrant, as I have noted many times in the past, it would be ok. I feel the ONLY viable reason to not have a warrant was because they wanted no paper trail or accountability. Now some have argued that they could not get a warrant in time so they just decided not to do that but they don't have to get a warrant prior to it...they have x amount of days AFTER the wire tap to get a warrant through fisa.

So...again...nice try.

So this kind of begs the question, are you all right with certain, seemingly unconstitutional restrictions if a warning, or pre-registration is attached?

In this case, sure people aren't going to knock on your door and take your gun, but this bill is very unconstitutional. I think it has been roundly proven that registering guns has done absolutely nothing to deter gun violence, as criminals don't work with registered weapons. So this really isn't a further measure of a successful policy, it's an awful precedent and a step toward unconstitutional restrictions.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Again...when has the US government went door to door and taken away everyone's guns? I have asked that time and time again yet you paranoid people have yet to give me an answer...only spout out history repeats itself. Yet never have you, or anyone else, given me an answer or example of where the US government has went door to door and taken away everyone's guns.

[Yoshimitsu]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/06/adem/pictures/absolut/images/absolut%20conspiracy.jpg

Put the Vodka down. You will be okay. There is not a government Conspiracy to take away your guns.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So this kind of begs the question, are you all right with certain, seemingly unconstitutional restrictions if a warning, or pre-registration is attached?

In this case, sure people aren't going to knock on your door and take your gun, but this bill is very unconstitutional. I think it has been roundly proven that registering guns has done absolutely nothing to deter gun violence, as criminals don't work with registered weapons. So this really isn't a further measure of a successful policy, it's an awful precedent and a step toward unconstitutional restrictions.

Wait...you say that this bill is not only unconstitutional but very unconstitutional yet later in the same paragraph say...it's an awful precedent and step TOWARD unconstitutional restrictions.

Now I am not sure how this bill is unconstitutional concerning the second amendment.

[MetalHead]

Again...when has the US government went door to door and taken away everyone's guns? I have asked that time and time again yet you paranoid people have yet to give me an answer...only spout out history repeats itself. Yet never have you, or anyone else, given me an answer or example of where the US government has went door to door and taken away everyone's guns.

New Orleans 2005.

[Yoshimitsu]

New Orleans 2005.

Dude gangs were running New Orleans before and after Katrina.

Guys were running around with illegal AK-47s. They had a good reason to take peoples weapons. They were doing it for their safety.

[ologan]

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/06/adem/pictures/absolut/images/absolut%20conspiracy.jpg

Put the Vodka down. You will be okay. There is not a government Conspiracy to take away your guns.

Then why do they want to know how many I've got,and the types of firearms I own? Why??? What will they do with this information? No paranoia,just want a good explanation of WHY???
Brainpaint...CowboyWay...Diaf....Can any of you tell me why???

[vta]

Wait...you say that this bill is not only unconstitutional but very unconstitutional yet later in the same paragraph say...it's an awful precedent and step TOWARD unconstitutional restrictions.

Further unconstitutional restrictions...

Now I am not sure how this bill is unconstitutional concerning the second amendment.

Not the 2nd Amendment, but the right to privacy.
At what point is the enumerating of our personal possessions by the government an invasion of privacy?

[MetalHead]

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/06/adem/pictures/absolut/images/absolut%20conspiracy.jpg

Put the Vodka down. You will be okay. There is not a government Conspiracy to take away your guns.

ok...let's leave it at that.
Apparently HR-45 is a myth.

[BrAinPaiNt]

New Orleans 2005.

Was this mayor nagin using martial law? Secondly kind of hard to go door to door and take EVERYONE's guns away...during hurricane Katrina.

Also that would seem to fall under city law or state law problems not federal law.

I guess you don't understand the term EVERYONE.

[MetalHead]

Dude gangs were running New Orleans before and after Katrina.

Guys were running around with illegal AK-47s. They had a good reason to take peoples weapons. They were doing it for their safety.

:lmao2:
Thank you Sir,you just made my point.

[Yoshimitsu]

Then why do they want to know how many I've got,and the types of firearms I own? Why??? What will they do with this information? No paranoia,just want a good explanation of WHY???

Its all in an effort to slow down gun crimes. They need to know who has these guns. They aren't taking them away.

[MetalHead]

Was this mayor nagin using martial law? Secondly kind of hard to go door to door and take EVERYONE's guns away...during hurricane Katrina.

Also that would seem to fall under city law or state law problems not federal law.

I guess you don't understand the term EVERYONE.

Ok...go play blind man and walk the Earth.
Don't say I did not warn you.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Further unconstitutional restrictions...



Not the 2nd Amendment, but the right to privacy.
At what point is the enumerating of our personal possessions by the government an invasion of privacy?

Not sure...I was told by some on here (big p cough) that we have no right of privacy from the constitution.

Further more is a car your own private property and do we not register our cars?

Do we not register to vote?

Do we not pay taxes on our homes, land, animals, vehicles...one would think we would not have to register any of that since it would be a right to privacy issue.

What is different in being ok to register those things, but not a gun?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Ok...go play blind man and walk the Earth.
Don't say I did not warn you.

Ok...I'll do that tough guy who is not so tough.:laugh2:

[Yoshimitsu]

ok...let's leave it at that.
Apparently HR-45 is a myth.

Yeah another act to get guns licensed and show a record of sale. Hardly an act that takes your gun away.

[vta]

Its all in an effort to slow down gun crimes. They need to know who has these guns. They aren't taking them away.

That's bogus. The implementation of gun laws have done nothing to curb gun violence. As I said earlier, this bill is in no way an extension of a successful policy, because it hasn't been a success. It only proved that law abiding citizens registered their guns while criminals got them hot.

[MetalHead]

Its all in an effort to slow down gun crimes. They need to know who has these guns. They aren't taking them away.

No it's not.
This huge spending bill is a powergrab.
Citizens without guns.
Open your eyes.

[Yoshimitsu]

That's bogus. The implementation of gun laws have done nothing to curb gun violence. As I said earlier, this bill is in no way an extension of a successful policy, because it hasn't been a success. It only proved that law abiding citizens registered their guns while criminals got them hot.

Then what should happen?? All guns should not be registered??

[MetalHead]

Ok...I'll do that tough guy who is not so tough.:laugh2:

Sad...just sad.

[Yoshimitsu]

No it's not.
This huge spending bill is a powergrab.
Citizens without guns.
Open your eyes.

Guns will get in peoples hands regardless if it was an constitutional right or not. People are delusional here. Government cannot take weapons away. Just like they can't ever win the war on drugs.

[BrAinPaiNt]

:lmao2:
Thank you Sir,you just made my point.

:laugh2: A point that you are silly?

So someone can go around your neighborhood waving an AK-47, looting stores, firing shots into the air or threatening people and you are saying the police, nor anyone else, has no right to go and take a gun away from people doing that? Really...is that what you are saying? Seriously?

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's bogus. The implementation of gun laws have done nothing to curb gun violence. As I said earlier, this bill is in no way an extension of a successful policy, because it hasn't been a success. It only proved that law abiding citizens registered their guns while criminals got them hot.

By this logic all drugs should be legal since the war on drugs has not worked and it is taking away our pursuit of happiness?

[BrAinPaiNt]

No it's not.
This huge spending bill is a powergrab.
Citizens without guns.
Open your eyes.

:laugh2: :laugh2: More paranoia.

Where in the bill does it say you or I can not own guns?

Where?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sad...just sad.

Yes your paranoia, tough guy act and silliness is sad. I agree.

[MetalHead]

Alright...idiocy reigns again.
Just like it did on Nov. 4

God help us all.

[Yoshimitsu]

:laugh2: :laugh2: More paranoia.

Where in the bill does it say you or I can not own guns?

Where?

It doesn't say. These people don't know what they are talking about. If guns weren't registered and sale records weren't kept then it would be absolute mayhem in the streets. It would be harder to get tabs on criminals.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Alright...idiocy reigns again.
Just like it did on Nov. 4

God help us all.

Sounds like you are the one that needs help...seriously.

You seem to want to claim that the government is saying you can not own guns in this bill.

[vta]

Not sure...I was told by some on here (big p cough) that we have no right of privacy from the constitution.

Further more is a car your own private property and do we not register our cars?

Cars and guns are not comparable. Cars are public identifiers and far more common place. There exists a greater chance of human error causing daily grief with a car than with a gun. Everyday, numerous people, all over the country are on the receiving end of some kind of traffic related grief. You register your car, so that when you do something stupid, you are called to answer for it.

A gun is a private possession that 90% of the population won't even know you have. No different than axe - shall I register my axe? I can certainly kill someone with it.

Do we not register to vote?

Our votes affect everybody. If you somehow find a way to cheat the voting system, you have affected everyone. If you have a gun and you don't shoot people, 90% of your neighbors won't even know you have one, as you have not affected them.

Do we not pay taxes on our homes, land, animals, vehicles...one would think we would not have to register any of that since it would be a right to privacy issue.

Taxes are something entirely different. Charge sales tax on the sale of guns and call it a day.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It doesn't say. These people don't know what they are talking about. If guns weren't registered and sale records weren't kept then it would be absolute mayhem in the streets. It would be harder to get tabs on criminals.

It reminds me of the idiocy a few years back when they passed out fliers in my state saying if you voted for this candidate or candidates party they would ban the bible and a few other things...like guns.

Idiocy and paranoia.

[MetalHead]

Yes your paranoia, tough guy act and silliness is sad. I agree.

Your act is disgusting and sad.
Talking like an ignoramus.
Keep it up BP...The founding fathers are sure proud.

[MetalHead]

It reminds me of the idiocy a few years back when they passed out fliers in my state saying if you voted for this candidate or candidates party they would ban the bible and a few other things...like guns.

Idiocy and paranoia.

May have something to do with you living in the inbred state of the union.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Cars and guns are not comparable. Cars are public identifiers and far more common place. There exists a greater chance of human error causing daily grief with a car than with a gun. Everyday, numerous people, all over the country are on the receiving end of some kind of traffic related grief. You register your car, so that when you do something stupid, you are called to answer for it.

A gun is a private possession that 90% of the population won't even know you have. No different than axe - shall I register my axe? I can certainly kill someone with it.

You kind of defeat your own arguments in this thread.

It should make no difference if there are more of one thing or the other. I mean that is kind of a silly argument don't you think? It is still your private property. You pay for it, you own it.

Then you say you register a car so if you do something stupid you are called to answer for it. One could argue that would be the same for a gun. You also register you car so if someone steals it, it can later be identified as your car...same could be said of a gun.

Your argument really does not hold much water using the lines of there are more cars or some people might not know you have a gun.

[vta]

Then what should happen?? All guns should not be registered??

'Then what should happen' is far too broad a question to be able to answer within a gun discussion. Acts of crime aren't enabled by inanimate objects. We can whittle it down to having to register pencils, as they can surely be used as weapons, and still not be anywhere near close to curbing crime.

The general registration process we have now works fine for dealing with crimes of passion, etc, but it hasn't fulfilled it's intended purpose.

The only thing we can do is stop trying to cover every eventuality. Trying to control a population, by infringing on the rights they are granted, is not an answer.

[MetalHead]

Sounds like you are the one that needs help...seriously.

You seem to want to claim that the government is saying you can not own guns in this bill.
Once again showing that you did not read the 1,071 page abomination.
No one has,but that little HR-45 detail slipped thru.
It does not say you cannot own guns,it talks about the conditions to own them.
Brain,a car without a transmission is a hunk of useless metal...get it?

[BrAinPaiNt]

May have something to do with you living in the inbred state of the union.

Nice...but just remember. Many people from my state have fought in every war since the civil war and helped give people not even born in this country, but later moved to this country, the freedoms they have. So how about we drop that kind of insult because it is not needed.

[peplaw06]

A gun is a private possession that 90% of the population won't even know you have. No different than axe - shall I register my axe? I can certainly kill someone with it.Just to play a little devil's advocate... I have to register my Xbox to get online, and you have to have a registered ISP to be able to post on this message board.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Once again showing that you did not read the 1,071 page abomination.
No one has,but that little HR-45 detail slipped thru.
It does not say you cannot own guns,it talks about the conditions to own them.
Brain,a car without a transmission is a hunk of useless metal...get it?

And there are conditions to owning and operating a car. There are conditions to owning land and a home and other private property.

Oh...and a gun without a barrel is just a hunk of useless metal...get it. Wow that was a brilliant argument on your part.:laugh2:

[Yoshimitsu]

'Then what should happen' is far too broad a question to be able to answer within a gun discussion. Acts of crime aren't enabled by inanimate objects. We can whittle it down to having to register pencils, as they can surely be used as weapons, and still not be anywhere near close to curbing crime.

The general registration process we have now works fine for dealing with crimes of passion, etc, but it hasn't fulfilled it's intended purpose.

The only thing we can do is stop trying to cover every eventuality. Trying to control a population, by infringing on the rights they are granted, is not an answer.

How is registering your gun an infringement on rights? The whole point of this is to let law enforcement know who has illegal gun. Most people with Illegal guns are criminals . Hell all of them are. So what point are you trying to make? If guns weren't registered do you realize what would be going on? Anybody and everybody would have guns and the cops couldn't do anything about it because its an invasion of their "privacy".

[MetalHead]

Nice...but just remember. Many people from my state have fought in every war since the civil war and helped give people not even born in this country, but later moved to this country, the freedoms they have. So how about we drop that kind of insult because it is not needed.

Those brave souls are now rolling on their graves.

[MetalHead]

And there are conditions to owning and operating a car. There are conditions to owning land and a home and other private property.

Oh...and a gun without a barrel is just a hunk of useless metal...get it. Wow that was a brilliant argument on your part.:laugh2:

of course there are,they just don't make it impossible to do so.
HR-45...look it up.
The fact that they are thinking about it is enough for me.
Do not be surprised.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Those brave souls are now rolling on their graves.

Those brave West Virginia soldiers are now rolling in their graves because some kid on the internet said they are in the biggest inbred state in the union because he was being foolish.

So how about you spare me your silliness in talking about something like that.

I mean you might want to check yourself and realize what you said was way over the line.

[BrAinPaiNt]

of course there are,they just don't make it impossible to do so.
HR-45...look it up.
The fact that they are thinking about it is enough for me.
Do not be surprised.

And again they are not making it impossible for you to own a gun.

Please show me in that bill where it says you can not own a gun...go on.

[MetalHead]

Those brave West Virginia soldiers are now rolling in their graves because some kid on the internet said they are in the biggest inbred state in the union because he was being foolish.

So how about you spare me your silliness in talking about something like that.

I mean you might want to check yourself and realize what you said was way over the line.

Ok...you are right...I stepped over the line.
I apologize,it was uncalled for.

[vta]

You kind of defeat your own arguments in this thread.

It should make no difference if there are more of one thing or the other. I mean that is kind of a silly argument don't you think? It is still your private property. You pay for it, you own it.

Then you say you register a car so if you do something stupid you are called to answer for it. One could argue that would be the same for a gun. You also register you car so if someone steals it, it can later be identified as your car...same could be said of a gun.

Your argument really does not hold much water using the lines of there are more cars or some people might not know you have a gun.

Not at all, even if you want to pick and choose or try to simplify it. Cars and guns are not comparable. The things you have that affect others are different from the things you have that don't.

You don't walk the streets with a gun and mistakenly fire it at people.

Next time you go to work, count the cars and the guns and see which number is greater, and which one has more of an affect on you and everyone around you.

And this isn't even the basis of my argument. The question remains, at what point is the enumeration of your private possessions by the government an invasion of privacy?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Ok...you are right...I stepped over the line.
I apologize,it was uncalled for.

Thank you. :cool:

[vta]

Just to play a little devil's advocate... I have to register my Xbox to get online, and you have to have a registered ISP to be able to post on this message board.

Who are you registering with?

[MetalHead]

And again they are not making it impossible for you to own a gun.

Please show me in that bill where it says you can not own a gun...go on.

Brain,you can own the gun,but they'll tax ammo to hell and put provisions like you have to own the most expensive safe for it if kids live in your house.
They will not outlaw gun ownership,but they will make it virtually impossible to own a gun.

[Yoshimitsu]

of course there are,they just don't make it impossible to do so.
HR-45...look it up.
The fact that they are thinking about it is enough for me.
Do not be surprised.

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 45
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009


Mr. RUSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as ‘Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009’.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--LICENSING

Sec. 101. Licensing requirement.
Sec. 102. Application requirements.
Sec. 103. Issuance of license.
Sec. 104. Renewal of license.
Sec. 105. Revocation of license.
TITLE II--RECORD OF SALE OR TRANSFER

Sec. 201. Sale or transfer requirements for qualifying firearms.
Sec. 202. Firearm records.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS

Sec. 301. Universal background check requirement.
Sec. 302. Failure to maintain or permit inspection of records.
Sec. 303. Failure to report loss or theft of firearm.
Sec. 304. Failure to provide notice of change of address.
Sec. 305. Child access prevention.
TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Criminal penalties.
Sec. 402. Regulations.
Sec. 403. Inspections.
Sec. 404. Orders.
Sec. 405. Injunctive enforcement.
TITLE V--FIREARM INJURY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH

Sec. 501. Duties of the Attorney General.
TITLE VI--EFFECT ON STATE LAW

Sec. 601. Effect on State law.
Sec. 602. Certification of State firearm licensing systems and State firearm record of sale systems.
TITLE VII--RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW

Sec. 701. Subordination to Arms Export Control Act.
TITLE VIII--INAPPLICABILITY

Sec. 801. Inapplicability to governmental authorities.
TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 901. Effective date of amendments.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that--
(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature;
(2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;
(3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;
(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;
(5) gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and
(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.
(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) firearms trafficking is prevalent and widespread in and among the States, and it is usually impossible to distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate trafficking; and
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.
(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.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- In this Act:
(1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms ‘firearm’, ‘licensed dealer’, ‘licensed manufacturer’, and ‘State’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term ‘qualifying firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--
‘(A) means--
‘(i) any handgun; or
‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
‘(B) does not include any antique.’.
TITLE I--LICENSING


SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--
‘(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or
‘(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.
‘(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term ‘applicable date’ means--
‘(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and
‘(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.’.
SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--
(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;
(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;
(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;
(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;
(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;
(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--
(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(B) the safe handling of firearms;
(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;
(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;
(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and
(10) the signature of the applicant.
(b) Regulations Governing Submission- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations specifying procedures for the submission of applications to the Attorney General under this section, which regulations shall--
(1) provide for submission of the application through a licensed dealer or an office or agency of the Federal Government designated by the Attorney General;
(2) require the applicant to provide a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, containing a photograph of the applicant, to the licensed dealer or to the office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable, at the time of submission of the application to that dealer, office, or agency; and
(3) require that a completed application be forwarded to the Attorney General not later than 48 hours after the application is submitted to the licensed dealer or office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable.
(c) Fees-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall charge and collect from each applicant for a license under this title a fee in an amount determined in accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) FEE AMOUNT- The amount of the fee collected under this subsection shall be not less than the amount determined by the Attorney General to be necessary to ensure that the total amount of all fees collected under this subsection during a fiscal year is sufficient to cover the costs of carrying out this title during that fiscal year, except that such amount shall not exceed $25.
SEC. 103. ISSUANCE OF LICENSE.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an application that meets the requirements of section 102 of this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the individual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm.
(b) Effect of Issuance to Prohibited Person- A firearm license issued under this section shall be null and void if issued to a person who is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm.
(c) Form of License- A firearm license issued under this section shall be in the form of a tamper-resistant card, and shall include--
(1) the photograph of the licensed individual submitted with the application;
(2) the address of the licensed individual;
(3) the date of birth of the licensed individual;
(4) a license number, unique to each licensed individual;
(5) the expiration date of the license, which shall be the date that is 5 years after the initial anniversary of the date of birth of the licensed individual following the date on which the license is issued (or in the case of a license renewal, following the date on which the license is renewed under section 104);
(6) the signature of the licensed individual provided on the application, or a facsimile of the application; and
(7) centered at the top of the license, capitalized, and in boldface type, the following:
‘FIREARM LICENSE--NOT VALID FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE’.
SEC. 104. RENEWAL OF LICENSE.

(a) Application for Renewal-
(1) IN GENERAL- In order to renew a firearm license issued under this title, not later than 30 days before the expiration date of the license, the licensed individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (3)), in a form approved by the Attorney General, an application for renewal of the license.
(2) CONTENTS- An application submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;
(B) current proof of identity of the licensed individual; and
(C) the address of the licensed individual.
(3) REGULATIONS GOVERNING SUBMISSION- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations specifying procedures for the submission of applications under this subsection.
(b) Issuance of Renewed License- Upon approval of an application submitted under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall issue a renewed license, which shall meet the requirements of section 103(c), except that the license shall include the current photograph and address of the licensed individual, as provided in the application submitted under this section, and the expiration date of the renewed license, as provided in section 103(c)(5).
SEC. 105. REVOCATION OF LICENSE.

(a) In General- If an individual to whom a license has been issued under this title subsequently becomes a person who is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm--
(1) the license is revoked; and
(2) the individual shall promptly return the license to the Attorney General.
(b) Administrative Action- Upon receipt by the Attorney General of notice that an individual to whom a license has been issued under this title has become a person described in subsection (a), the Attorney General shall ensure that the individual promptly returns the license to the Attorney General.
TITLE II--RECORD OF SALE OR TRANSFER


SEC. 201. SALE OR TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING FIREARMS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(bb) Unauthorized Sale or Transfer of a Qualifying Firearm- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, unless, at the time and place of the transfer or receipt--
‘(1) the transferee presents to a licensed dealer a valid firearm license issued to the transferee--
‘(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009; or
‘(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 established by the State in which the transfer or receipt occurs;
‘(2) the licensed dealer contacts the Attorney General or the head of the State agency that administers the certified system described in paragraph (1)(B), as applicable, and receives notice that the transferee has been issued a firearm license described in paragraph (1) and that the license remains valid; and
‘(3) the licensed dealer records on a document (which, in the case of a sale, shall be the sales receipt) a tracking authorization number provided by the Attorney General or the head of the State agency, as applicable, as evidence that the licensed dealer has verified the validity of the license.’.
SEC. 202. FIREARM RECORDS.

(a) Submission of Sale or Transfer Reports- Not later than 14 days after the date on which the transfer of qualifying firearm is processed by a licensed dealer under section 922(bb) of title 18, United States Code (as added by section 201 of this Act), the licensed dealer shall submit to the Attorney General (or, in the case of a licensed dealer located in a State that has a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of this Act, to the head of the State agency that administers that system) a report of that transfer, which shall include information relating to--
(1) the manufacturer of the firearm;
(2) the model name or number of the firearm;
(3) the serial number of the firearm;
(4) the date on which the firearm was received by the transferee;
(5) the number of a valid firearm license issued to the transferee under title I of this Act; and
(6) the name and address of the individual who transferred the firearm to the transferee.
(b) Federal Record of Sale System- Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish and maintain a Federal record of sale system, which shall include the information included in each report submitted to the Attorney General under subsection (a).
(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS


SEC. 301. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101 and 201 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(cc) Universal Background Check Requirement-
‘(1) REQUIREMENT- Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person other than such a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with subsection (t).
‘(2) 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.’.
SEC. 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.’.
SEC. 303. FAILURE TO REPORT LOSS OR THEFT OF FIREARM.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, and 302 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(ee) Failure To Report Loss or Theft of Firearm- It shall be unlawful for any person who owns a qualifying firearm to fail to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours after the loss or theft is discovered.’.
SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.’.
SEC. 305. CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, 303, and 304 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(gg) Child Access Prevention-
‘(1) DEFINITION OF CHILD- In this subsection, the term ‘child’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.
‘(2) PROHIBITION AND PENALTIES- Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any 1 of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person, if--
‘(A) that person--
‘(i) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child is capable of gaining access to the firearm; and
‘(ii) either--
‘(I) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child will use the firearm to cause the death of, or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) to, the child or any other person; or
‘(II) knows, or reasonably should know, that possession of the firearm by a child is unlawful under Federal or State law; and
‘(B) a child uses the firearm and the use of that firearm causes the death of, or serious bodily injury to, the child or any other person.
‘(3) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (2) shall not apply if--
‘(A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;
‘(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the official duties of the person in that capacity;
‘(C) the child uses the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or more other persons; or
‘(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.’.
TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT


SEC. 401. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

(a) Failure To Possess Firearm License; Failure To Comply With Qualifying Firearm Sale or Transfer Requirements; Failure To Maintain or Permit Inspection of Records- Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (aa), (bb), or (dd) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.’.
(b) Failure To Comply With Universal Background Checks; Failure To Timely Report Loss or Theft of a Qualifying Firearm; Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- Section 924(a)(5) of such title is amended by striking ‘(s) or (t)’ and inserting ‘(t), (cc), (ee), or (ff)’.
(c) Child Access Prevention- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(9) Whoever violates section 105(a)(2) of Blair Holt’s Handgun Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, knowingly or having reason to believe that the person is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
‘(10) Whoever violates section 922(gg) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’.
SEC. 402. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue regulations governing the licensing of possessors of qualifying firearms and the recorded sale of qualifying firearms, consistent with this Act and the amendments made by this Act, as the Attorney General determines to be reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent deaths or injuries resulting from qualifying firearms, and to assist law enforcement in the apprehension of owners or users of qualifying firearms used in criminal activity.
(b) Maximum Interval Between Issuance of Proposed and Final Regulation- Not later than 120 days after the date on which the Attorney General issues a proposed regulation under subsection (a) with respect to a matter, the Attorney General shall issue a final regulation with respect to the matter.
SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.

In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.
SEC. 404. ORDERS.

The Attorney General may issue an order prohibiting the sale or transfer of any firearm that the Attorney General finds has been transferred or distributed in violation of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or a regulation issued under this Act.
SEC. 405. INJUNCTIVE ENFORCEMENT.

The Attorney General may bring an action to restrain any violation of this Act or an amendment made by this Act in the district court of the United States for any district in which the violation has occurred, or in which the defendant is found or transacts business.
TITLE V--FIREARM INJURY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH


SEC. 501. DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall--
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse to collect, investigate, analyze, and disseminate data and information relating to the causes and prevention of death and injury associated with firearms;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures for each licensed manufacturer.
(b) Availability of Information- Periodically, but not less frequently than annually, the Attorney General shall report to the Congress and make available to the public a report on the activities of the Attorney General under subsection (a).
TITLE VI--EFFECT ON STATE LAW


SEC. 601. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

(a) In General- This Act and the amendments made by this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State, or prevent a State or political subdivision of that State from enacting any provision of law regulating or prohibiting conduct with respect to firearms, except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
(b) Rule of Interpretation- A provision of State law is not inconsistent with this Act or an amendment made by this Act if the provision imposes a regulation or prohibition of greater scope or a penalty of greater severity than a corresponding prohibition or penalty imposed by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.
SEC. 602. CERTIFICATION OF STATE FIREARM LICENSING SYSTEMS AND STATE FIREARM RECORD OF SALE SYSTEMS.

Upon a written request of the chief executive officer of a State, the Attorney General may certify--
(1) a firearm licensing system established by a State, if State law requires the system to satisfy the requirements applicable to the Federal firearm licensing system established under title I; or
(2) a firearm record of sale system established by a State, if State law requires the head of the State agency that administers the system to submit to the Federal firearm record of sale system established under section 202(b) a copy of each report submitted to the head of the agency under section 202(a), within 7 days after receipt of the report.
TITLE VII--RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW


SEC. 701. SUBORDINATION TO ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.

In the event of any conflict between any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and any provision of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751), the provision of the Arms Export Control Act shall control.
TITLE VIII--INAPPLICABILITY


SEC. 801. INAPPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.
TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE


SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.


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

Have yet to see where it says they are taking away your gun.

You are destroying your credibility.

[MetalHead]

Thank you. :cool:

No problem...I did cross the line on that one.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Not at all, even if you want to pick and choose or try to simplify it. Cars and guns are not comparable. The things you have that affect others are different from the things you have that don't.

You don't walk the streets with a gun and mistakenly fire it at people.

Next time you go to work, count the cars and the guns and see which number is greater, and which one has more of an affect on you and everyone around you.

And this isn't even the basis of my argument. The question remains, at what point is the enumeration of your private possessions by the government an invasion of privacy?

You say the car and gun analogy is not comparable but then go back to say that the right of privacy issue is your basis for the argument and in that aspect they are comparable...so I say again...why is it ok with you to register your car and not ok to register your gun?

[Yoshimitsu]

You say the car and gun analogy is not comparable but then go back to say that the right of privacy issue is your basis for the argument and in that aspect they are comparable...so I say again...why is it ok with you to register your car and not ok to register your gun?

He can't tell you because there is no problem with registering your gun. As Bill O'Reilly says he is just bloviating.

[vta]

How is registering your gun an infringement on rights? The whole point of this is to let law enforcement know who has illegal gun. Most people with Illegal guns are criminals . Hell all of them are. So what point are you trying to make? If guns weren't registered do you realize what would be going on? Anybody and everybody would have guns and the cops couldn't do anything about it because its an invasion of their "privacy".

So, if Law Abiding Citizen Joe registers his gun, the cops know who the criminals are and whether or not they have guns? How?

If guns weren't registered do I realize what would be happening? What? Would you or I be filled with a passion to get a gun and shoot someone? Would law abiding citizens be gripped with a sudden mania and go nuts?

Criminals get guns regardless.

As I said, the registration process is fine as it is, and this article does engage in a bit of hysterical hyperbole, but I don't think we need to tighten the straps on the people already abiding by the law and enforce ridiculous renewals of registration for guns. The pressure of crime has more pressing needs than this.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Brain,you can own the gun,but they'll tax ammo to hell and put provisions like you have to own the most expensive safe for it if kids live in your house.
They will not outlaw gun ownership,but they will make it virtually impossible to own a gun.

So again I say...you are paranoid to think that this bill is saying you can not own a gun.

So you agree they are not saying you can not have a gun.

THAT was my whole point and people get all crazy thinking I am against the second amendment or I don't think people should have guns and so on.

Just because I don't agree with you a 100% on the issue it does not mean I disagree with things 100%.

IF they got to the point where they came into my house to take my guns or knives away...you can bet your bottom dollar I would be like heston and making them pry it from my dead cold hands. Just as the majority of americans and that is why I believe they will never be able to do it because most americans would never stand for it.

That would be the time the government learned to fear it's citizens instead of it's citizens fearing it's government.

This could be a step in that direction...but even if it is, I am not paranoid or worried about it, because I have faith americans.

[vta]

You say the car and gun analogy is not comparable but then go back to say that the right of privacy issue is your basis for the argument and in that aspect they are comparable...so I say again...why is it ok with you to register your car and not ok to register your gun?

I guess you're not going to acknowledge that I've already answered this?

[BrAinPaiNt]

I guess you're not going to acknowledge that I've already answered this?

You answered around it but did not make a serious reason why one is private property (and part of right to privacy) and one is not.

Your only answer is there are more than one and it is more common, in essence your argument amounts to the idea that since cars are so common and we see so many of them...they are not our private property and therefore not subject to any right of privacy.

[Yoshimitsu]

So, if Law Abiding Citizen Joe registers his gun, the cops know who the criminals are and whether or not they have guns? How?


You still haven't let it sink into your mind. If someone gets arrested and they are carrying an illegal fire arm they get arrested. Same if cops raid someones house and they have an illegal firearm. If guns weren't registered Drug dealers wouldn't be getting their Guns taken away. Nobody would. Felons would be carrying guns just because its their "Constitutional right" Whatever.


If guns weren't registered do I realize what would be happening? What? Would you or I be filled with a passion to get a gun and shoot someone? Would law abiding citizens be gripped with a sudden mania and go nuts?

No but everyone would have guns. Even criminals.

Criminals get guns regardless.

No ****. But having the law abiding citizens register their guns helps law enforcement tell the difference from the criminal and Joe Shmoe. Get the concept?



As I said, the registration process is fine as it is, and this article does engage in a bit of hysterical hyperbole, but I don't think we need to tighten the straps on the people already abiding by the law and enforce ridiculous renewals of registration for guns. The pressure of crime have more pressing needs than this.


The transfer of a firearm to any person other than a licensee unless that transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
Licensed manufacturers or dealers failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
Failing to report the loss or theft of a firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; and
Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm with ammunition, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child should use the firearm and cause death or serious bodily injury;

All of these are Legitimate. So what are you talking about?

[vta]

You answered around it but did not make a serious reason why one is private property (and part of right to privacy) and one is not.

Your only answer is there are more than one and it is more common, in essence your argument amounts to the idea that since cars are so common and we see so many of them...they are not our private property and therefore not subject to any right of privacy.

You're being a bit disingenuous here, or you're not even reading what I wrote. I didn't answer strictly with the quantity of. It wouldn't take 4-5 different posts to say, well there's more cars than guns.

I answered it directly, highlighting how one directly effects your fellow citizens on a daily basis and how one will only potentially affect them, but more often than not won't.

Personal items that don't interfere with everybody else's rights don't have to be scrutinized and enumerated. Their potential to be misused isn't reason enough either.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You're being a bit disingenuous here, or you're not even reading what I wrote. I didn't answer strictly with the quantity of. It wouldn't take 4-5 different posts to say, well there's more cars than guns.

I answered it directly, highlighting how one directly effects your fellow citizens on a daily basis and how one will only potentially affect them, but more often than not won't.

Personal items that don't interfere with everybody else's rights don't have to be scrutinized and enumerated. Their potential to be misused isn't reason enough either.

But it is still private property and would private property not also fall under right of privacy?

Also...I am not trying to be disingenuous here. I really don't understand how one can argue right of privacy with a gun but not a car or your home. Heck there would seem to be more to argue about a home considering Eminent domain cases but that is another ball of wax...and no I am not in favor of Eminent domain.

[vta]

You still haven't let it sink into your mind. If someone gets arrested and they are carrying an illegal fire arm they get arrested.

This has been the law since the '30's I believe. So what's the point of the new bill?

Same if cops raid someones house and they have an illegal firearm. If guns weren't registered Drug dealers wouldn't be getting their Guns taken away. Nobody would. Felons would be carrying guns just because its their "Constitutional right" Whatever.

I believe the law regarding criminals and having their right to bear arms stripped of them has nothing to do the with whether or not they registered them.

No but everyone would have guns. Even criminals.

Even criminals? Then way type no **** right beneath this revelation, Yoshi?

But having the law abiding citizens register their guns helps law enforcement tell the difference from the criminal and Joe Shmoe. Get the concept?

Of course it's not the act that differentiates the criminal from Joe Schmoe, it's the registered gun. Quite a concept.

All of these are Legitimate. So what are you talking about?

Great! That's the whole bill?
Get it signed and let's be done with it.

[vta]

But it is still private property and would private property not also fall under right of privacy?

Also...I am not trying to be disingenuous here. I really don't understand how one can argue right of privacy with a gun but not a car or your home. Heck there would seem to be more to argue about a home considering Eminent domain cases but that is another ball of wax...and no I am not in favor of Eminent domain.

Maybe private property isn't the proper word for something that transcends the owners own domain and has a more profound affect on the public?

My private car is on public roads, on other people's private property (parking lot's, etc) and therefore I am liable for what my car is involved in and how it affects others.

Where as, if I had a gun, more likely than not, it would never be in any of those places and there's no chance of it affecting anyone.

I'm out for the evening fella's. :)

[ChldsPlay]

You still haven't let it sink into your mind. If someone gets arrested and they are carrying an illegal fire arm they get arrested. Same if cops raid someones house and they have an illegal firearm. If guns weren't registered Drug dealers wouldn't be getting their Guns taken away. Nobody would. Felons would be carrying guns just because its their "Constitutional right" Whatever.



No but everyone would have guns. Even criminals.



No ****. But having the law abiding citizens register their guns helps law enforcement tell the difference from the criminal and Joe Shmoe. Get the concept?





All of these are Legitimate. So what are you talking about?

You don't make any sense at all. There's no logic here.

[ScipioCowboy]

The problem I have with the wire tapping was that it was done without warrants either pre or post. If they acquired a warrant, as I have noted many times in the past, it would be ok. I feel the ONLY viable reason to not have a warrant was because they wanted no paper trail or accountability. Now some have argued that they could not get a warrant in time so they just decided not to do that but they don't have to get a warrant prior to it...they have x amount of days AFTER the wire tap to get a warrant through fisa.

So...again...nice try.

There's no "trying" on my part. There's only your words, and what they reveal about you.

Now, let's explore this issue of warrants.

In order to acquire a warrant, the government must be able to demonstrate that a person has committed or is likely to commit a criminal act. Warrants are designed to protect a person's right to privacy and to prevent the government from obtaining information to which it is not entitled - this is the very reason wiretapping without a warrant is wrong.

This is also the reason requiring federal gun registration is wrong. What crime have these gun owners committed? What crimes have they given the government reason to believe they will commit? I'm sorry, but simply purchasing a gun is not sufficient reason...no more than picking up the phone is sufficient reason for wiretapping.

[ScipioCowboy]

Then you say you register a car so if you do something stupid you are called to answer for it. One could argue that would be the same for a gun. You also register you car so if someone steals it, it can later be identified as your car...same could be said of a gun.

Your argument really does not hold much water using the lines of there are more cars or some people might not know you have a gun.

There's a myriad of differences between vehicle registration laws and the federal registration of firearms.

Vehicle registration is managed at the state level, not the federal level.

More importantly, registration of passenger and commercial vehicles is required if the owner intends to use the vehicle on public roads, which are owned by the state. If use of the vehicle is limited to private property, registration is usually not required.

According to your car analogy, gun registration is only warranted if the person intends to carry his firearm in a public place. And, many states require gun registration as a prerequisite for obtaining a right-to-carry permit. There's absolutely no reason people should be forced to register firearms if they're going to be kept on private property.

[theogt]

Wait, so it ONLY requires that inherently dangerous devices be registered?

Oh, the horror.

[burmafrd]

There is no good reason for this. BOTTOM LINE.

And look how much it will cost to implement this action. There are thought to be around 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Over 50,000,000 minimum gun owners.
You think the motor vehicle registration is expensive- this will be even more.

AND then there is the cost that will have to be borne by the law abiding citizens.

Any way you want to look at it this is wrong.

[burmafrd]

Then why are not knives registered OGT?

[theogt]

There is no good reason for this. BOTTOM LINE.Sure there is. You may not think it's a sufficient reason to warrant registration, but there's a reason, nonetheless.

[theogt]

Then why are not knives registered OGT?Because knives aren't anywhere near as dangerous as guns, maybe?

[burmafrd]

I said no GOOD reason.

Knives kill people. You can kill multiple people with knives. SO frankly your analogy is very weak.

[theogt]

I said no GOOD reason.

I am still waiting for your answer on knives OGT.Increased likelihood of solving a higher number of crimes.

That's a good reason. Like I said, you may not think it's sufficient to warrant registration, but it's a "good reason." Perhaps it's even a "GOOD reason."

[burmafrd]

http://runryder.com/helicopter/t471261p1/

Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

17% is no small amount.

[burmafrd]

Increased liklihood of solving crimes. Really. I would then insist you show some numbers that support the massive intrusion into our lives and the cost of this program.


http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used. html

More data supporting the registration of knives.

[theogt]

http://runryder.com/helicopter/t471261p1/

Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

17% is no small amount.Thanks for posting the statistics to back my point up.

Increased liklihood of solving crimes. Really. I would then insist you show some numbers that support the massive intrusion into our lives and the cost of this program.


http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used. html

More data supporting the registration of knives.Look, I've said multiple times already that you may or may not think the reason warrants "intrusion into our lives and the cost of this program." I don't care to debate that point at all, as there's no way to quantify the choice. It's totally a personal choice based purely on subjective determinations.

However, you can't say something as silly as there's no good reason. Of course there are good reasons. You just don't think they're worth addressing.

[silverbear]

http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_St... (http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_Stimulus_Bill_Congress_Seeks_to_O verturn_the_Second_Amendment11500.shtml)


Under Cover of a "Stimulus" Bill, Congress Seeks to Overturn the Second Amendment
By Ken Anderson
Feb 12, 2009 - 10:41:20 AM

Email this article
Printer friendly page


In a Bill introduced on the first day of the present session of Congress, with no coverage from the mainstream media, H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) targets gun owners in the United States. While everyone's attention was on the bogus "stimulus" plan to print and spend trillions of tax dollars, this legislation is worming its way through the House and Senate.

This Bill will strip us of the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. It requires the registration of all new guns during the first two years after enactment. After two years, the new law goes retroactive, mandating that all firearms in a citizen's possession be registered, not just those purchased after the enactment of the law. This apparently applies to antique firearms as well.

.......more in link........

Let's see, you have to register your car to drive it, you have to register your pet... none of these provokes right wing outrage... but the notion that you should have to register your firearms, well, that's just WRONG...

This bill is no "attack on the 2nd Amendment", that's just asinine... it does NOTHING to restrict the ownership of any firearm, it merely requires that you register it when you purchase it...

And that could be a valuable tool for law enforcement...

[silverbear]

See this is how it starts you slowly give up your freedoms because it is just something small no big deal.

People keep blowing stuff like this off but all the signs point to the Government taking over.

And yet, I'll bet you supported the Patriot Act, didn't you??

There are no "freedoms" being given up in the bill in question, period... Brain's right, that's just NRA paranoia...

[silverbear]

http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

There you go again, making up stuff I did not say.

I did not say "oh my God! They may make you register to vote!"

What
I
Said
Was
(and READ this time)

What if they made you NOT ONLY register to vote, but indicate in a federal registry for WHOM you voted and WHY.

How exactly is that comparable in ANY way to the bill proposed??

Answer-- it's not... so your argument is rather idiotic...

[silverbear]

Also, notice how you use the language of a voluntary program to refute a statutory one... "If I wanted to...". We're not talking about registries people can sign up for...if they *want* to. With the government standing there batting its eyes saying "pretty please???". It's force, under penalty of law.

So are requiring you to have a license to drive a car, or a license to own a dog, or motorcycle helmet laws... there are all kinds of examples in our day to day life of "force, under penalty of law"...

So how is requiring one to register any firearms one might own any different?? Again, there is a legitimate benefit for law enforcement in the passage of such a bill...

[silverbear]

Please do ignore me because I don't feel like suffering some tin foil conspiracy dude calling other people liars while on some kind of rubber room roid rage.


"Rubber room roid rage"... what a NICE piece of alliteration, and quite appropriate in this context...

The NRA has really done this country a disservice these past coupla decades, convincing their people the even reasonable gun laws are entirely unreasonable, even un-American...

Me, I'm not a hunter, but my Dad was, and I support fully the owning of sporting weapons... I even support the owning of handguns... I do not, however, see the need for anyone outside of law enforcement or the military to own a fully-automatic assault rifle...

And I certainly see NO problem with requiring that all firearms be registered by their owners...

[silverbear]

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the wiretapping endeavors undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, it's not as if anyone's Constitutional rights were actually circumvented, correct?

How exactly would your constitutional rights be "circumvented" by a law requiring you register any firearms you might own??

That is a serious question, and I'd like an answer, from you, or from anybody...

[ScipioCowboy]

How exactly would your constitutional rights be "circumvented" by a law requiring you register any firearms you might own??

That is a serious question, and I'd like an answer, from you, or from anybody...

...in precisely the same manner rights are circumvented by warrantless wiretapping. The federal government is infringing upon your right to privacy.

[silverbear]

Paranoia:lmao2: ----Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammo !!! ---some things in life you dont leave to chance.....and one of the main things is trusting a politican .......

"just registering"---isnt that like the frog sitting in warm water, waiting for it to boil?

This bill has more meat in it that simply that...

Under the provisions of the Bill, gun owners will be required to go through a complete renewal process every five years, any failure to comply carrying stiff penalties which would include the confiscation of the firearms and jail time, with penalties as high as ten years in some cases.

I have to renew my driver's license every 5 years, too... so what's your problem??

The Bill also authorizes government searches without a warrant, creating a new federal bureaucracy to monitor the possession of firearms by citizens of the United States.

Well, that's just a distortion of what the law says... permit me to quote what it REALLY says:

In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.

So, they do NOT have the right to search your HOME without a warrant, that right would be restricted to firearm factories, or stores that sell firearms, or warehouses that store firearms for sale to the public...

it would make instant criminals of 85% of the 70 million gun owners in the USA

Not if they go register their guns...

[silverbear]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

An utterly simplistic banality, with no relevance to the topic at hand...

Or can you point to another time in our history where guns were registered as a precursor to taking them away??

[silverbear]

Then why do they want to know how many I've got,and the types of firearms I own? Why??? What will they do with this information? No paranoia,just want a good explanation of WHY???

For openers, it will help law enforcement identify the owners of firearms involved in violent crimes...

[CowboyMcCoy]

Let's see, you have to register your car to drive it, you have to register your pet... none of these provokes right wing outrage... but the notion that you should have to register your firearms, well, that's just WRONG...

This bill is no "attack on the 2nd Amendment", that's just asinine... it does NOTHING to restrict the ownership of any firearm, it merely requires that you register it when you purchase it...

And that could be a valuable tool for law enforcement...


I'm somewhat liberal but I don't like the registering gun rule or the registering pet rule.

[ScipioCowboy]

For openers, it will help law enforcement identify the owners of firearms involved in violent crimes...

Much like warrantless wiretapping was intended to help the Bush administration better identify terrorists.

These measures are always taken in the name of safety, aren't they? The only difference is this: one measure has Bush's name attached to it while the other has Obama's.

[silverbear]

Alright...idiocy reigns again.

I suspect that's true every day in your house...

[silverbear]

Talking like an ignoramus.

If that was a college course, you'd be the professor...

[silverbear]

Once again showing that you did not read the 1,071 page abomination.
No one has,but that little HR-45 detail slipped thru.
It does not say you cannot own guns,it talks about the conditions to own them.

Just like there are conditions for owning a car, like REGISTERING it...

Really, how hard is it to take your disabled butt down to the sheriff's office and register your vast collection of automatic firearms?? :D

[silverbear]

Ok...you are right...I stepped over the line.
I apologize,it was uncalled for.

Bravo, Artie... takes a man to do that...

[silverbear]

Brain,you can own the gun,but they'll tax ammo to hell and put provisions like you have to own the most expensive safe for it if kids live in your house.
They will not outlaw gun ownership,but they will make it virtually impossible to own a gun.

Man, you really ARE paranoid... LOL...

[silverbear]

So, if Law Abiding Citizen Joe registers his gun, the cops know who the criminals are and whether or not they have guns?

Wrong... they can know where a given weapon used in a violent crime came from, and thus maybe get a line on who used it in the commission of that violent crime...

I don't think we need to tighten the straps on the people already abiding by the law and enforce ridiculous renewals of registration for guns.

Yeah, because it would take SOOOOOO long to fill out the required forms-- once every five freakin' years...

[silverbear]

My private car is on public roads, on other people's private property (parking lot's, etc) and therefore I am liable for what my car is involved in and how it affects others.

And you're saying that you're NOT liable for what's done with your gun??

Where as, if I had a gun, more likely than not, it would never be in any of those places and there's no chance of it affecting anyone.

"More likely than not" is, I think, the key there... you acknowledge that there's a chance that you weapon could ultimately end up affecting others... like if it's stolen, and used in a crime, or God forbid, a kid gets hold of it, and accidentally shoots another kid while showing it off...

[silverbear]

There's no "trying" on my part. There's only your words, and what they reveal about you.

Now, let's explore this issue of warrants.

In order to acquire a warrant, the government must be able to demonstrate that a person has committed or is likely to commit a criminal act. Warrants are designed to protect a person's right to privacy and to prevent the government from obtaining information to which it is not entitled - this is the very reason wiretapping without a warrant is wrong.

This is also the reason requiring federal gun registration is wrong. What crime have these gun owners committed? What crimes have they given the government reason to believe they will commit? I'm sorry, but simply purchasing a gun is not sufficient reason...no more than picking up the phone is sufficient reason for wiretapping.

Equating registering a weapon to acquiring a search warrant is idiocy... if you accept that argument, then laws requiring we license our cars and our pets are also "wrong"...

What crime have car owners committed?? What crime have pet owners committed??

[silverbear]

...in precisely the same manner rights are circumvented by warrantless wiretapping. The federal government is infringing upon your right to privacy.

I certainly wouldn't feel my privacy has been violated if I have to register the firearms I have in my home... I'd have about as much problem with that as I do with the requirement that I register my car (which means that I'd be annoyed at having to take the time to do it, LOL)...

Why are you so scared to let the government know what weapons you have?? Are you some kind of survivalist nut, with an armory in the bomb shelter in the back yard??

[silverbear]

Much like warrantless wiretapping was intended to help the Bush administration better identify terrorists.

These measures are always taken in the name of safety, aren't they? The only difference is this: one measure has Bush's name attached to it while the other has Obama's.

No, there's another, considerably more significant difference-- warrantless wiretapping IS an unconstitutional violation of my civil rights, while requiring me to register my guns is simply not...

You know I like you, Scipio, but arguing that registering guns is a violation of our right to privacy is rather idiotic...

[ScipioCowboy]

Equating registering a weapon to acquiring a search warrant is idiocy... if you accept that argument, then laws requiring we license our cars and our pets are also "wrong"...

You should redress the warrant issue with BP. He was the one who brought up warrants, not I.

I merely pointed out that conducting warrantless wiretaps and requiring federal registration of firearms are wrong for the same reason: They constitute an invasion of privacy.

What crime have car owners committed?? What crime have pet owners committed??If you had bothered to read through the entire thread before emoting everywhere and engaging in ad hominen attacks, you would see that I've already addressed these particular issues.

[ScipioCowboy]

I certainly wouldn't feel my privacy has been violated if I have to register the firearms I have in my home... I'd have about as much problem with that as I do with the requirement that I register my car (which means that I'd be annoyed at having to take the time to do it, LOL)...

Good for you. There were numerous people in this forum who didn't feel their privacy threatened by wireless tapes.

Why are you so scared to let the government know what weapons you have?? Are you some kind of survivalist nut, with an armory in the bomb shelter in the back yard??

You know I like you, Scipio, but arguing that registering guns is a violation of our right to privacy is rather idiotic...Again, you're engaging in ad hominen attacks, and making crass, unsubstantiated assumptions about my motivations.

Similarly, I could ask you: Why are you worried about warrantless wiretaps? Are you terrorist or something?

I dislike federal registration of firearms for the same reason I disliked warrantless wiretaps.

No, there's another, considerably more significant difference-- warrantless wiretapping IS an unconstitutional violation of my civil rights, while requiring me to register my guns is simply not...

Let's play a mental exercise here. Why is it wrong for the government to engage in wiretapping without warrants? Would the government be justified in wiretapping my phone line without a warrant in order to ascertain the number of guns I have?

The information I share over my phone, much like the number of guns I have, is not the business of the federal government unless they have reason to suspect me of illegal activity.

[burmafrd]

Just like OGT refused to see the stupidity so does Silver (much less surprised there).

OGT never answered my question about knives. Thousands of people are killed/injured each year by knives. Should not they be registered?
The only difference between firearms and knives is the number of victims. everything else is the same. So if you register one because it would help fight crime then you should register the other for the same reason.

[silverbear]

I merely pointed out that conducting warrantless wiretaps and requiring federal registration of firearms are wrong for the same reason: They constitute an invasion of privacy.

And I reject that argument completely... if it were an invasion of our privacy to require us to register our firearms, it would also be an invasion of privacy to require us to register our car, our pet, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

Clearly, the courts do not consider the act of registering some piece of your property to be a violation of your privacy... in fact, the precedent is well-established that requiring the registration of some piece of your property is constitutional...

Nope, it's quite bogus to equate the registration of firearms with warrantless wiretapping...

[silverbear]

The information I share over my phone, much like the number of guns I have, is not the business of the federal government unless they have reason to suspect me of illegal activity.

It may or may not be the business of government, but unlike warrantless wiretapping, it is NOT a violation of your constitutional rights...

Period... the principle of registering specific possessions you might own is well-established in America, and is not unconstitutional... you simply cannot make a LEGAL argument that would stand up in a court of law that it is...

Again, if it was, it would be illegal for the government to require us to register ANYTHING-- cars, dogs, houses...

[heavyg]

Registering your guns means going door to door and taking them away? Seriously?

Must suck going through life as paranoid as you guys.

next

I have no problem with some form of gun control. What I have a problem with are these whackos that believe if you BAN hand guns that all of a sudden the bad guys will no longer have them. All that means is the regular law abiding citizen will not have a gun to protect them from the bad guy who still has his gun. And do you think the bad guy is going down to the local gun shop to buy his gun?

[sbark]

And I reject that argument completely... if it were an invasion of our privacy to require us to register our firearms, it would also be an invasion of privacy to require us to register our car, our pet, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

Clearly, the courts do not consider the act of registering some piece of your property to be a violation of your privacy... in fact, the precedent is well-established that requiring the registration of some piece of your property is constitutional...

Nope, it's quite bogus to equate the registration of firearms with warrantless wiretapping...

Ownership of a car is not a 2nd Amendment right, ownerhip of a pet is not covered under the bill of rights etc etc etc.....ad infinitum....

Gun Ownership is simply a Right.......not to be infringed upon.......

and yes, you are correct....people will still get guns.......the wrong people
Crime up Down Under (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304)
Mar 3, 2000 ... Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun ...

There are an estimated 25,000 gun laws already on the books---go enforce them.....analyze the effect on crime .........problem is most criminals are democrat voters....they are just protecting their constituency.

All the Left thinks Health Care should be a "right"---why stop there....why not 4 slot toasters, why not PS3' why not 60 LCD.......

Artie is correct.....the hypocrisy of the left when comparing to wiretapping is unbeleivable.........and yet even at that.....Obama campaign admitted mineing C.card info in order to narrow down potential donars.....far beyond what GW even dreamed of....

[sbark]

I have no problem with some form of gun control. What I have a problem with are these whackos that believe if you BAN hand guns that all of a sudden the bad guys will no longer have them. All that means is the regular law abiding citizen will not have a gun to protect them from the bad guy who still has his gun. And do you think the bad guy is going down to the local gun shop to buy his gun?

There are 20,000 gun laws on the books already.........Democrats should enforce or eliminate the 19,999 that are not effective.......

Google UK or Austrailian gun bans and the effects on crime-----

No coincidence all the emails going around with mug shots----notice the political affilation by the Obama T shirts......

[vta]

And you're saying that you're NOT liable for what's done with your gun??



"More likely than not" is, I think, the key there... you acknowledge that there's a chance that you weapon could ultimately end up affecting others... like if it's stolen, and used in a crime, or God forbid, a kid gets hold of it, and accidentally shoots another kid while showing it off...

No, I'm saying the use of your private car, is totally and unequivocally dependent on the use of public property. Therefore, you are responsible for how it affects others.

There's also a chance an axe can end up buried in your neighbors head. Because this possible instance exists, should you register an axe? A pencil? A baseball bat?

At which point is the enumeration of your personal belongings by the government an invasion of your privacy?

[ThaBigP]

And I reject that argument completely... if it were an invasion of our privacy to require us to register our firearms, it would also be an invasion of privacy to require us to register our car, our pet, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

Clearly, the courts do not consider the act of registering some piece of your property to be a violation of your privacy... in fact, the precedent is well-established that requiring the registration of some piece of your property is constitutional...

Nope, it's quite bogus to equate the registration of firearms with warrantless wiretapping...

I defy you, as I did Brain, to pour over the Bill of Rights, and find ONE SINGLE right enumerated therein that you MUST REGISTER to enjoy, and must notify the government of the means of your exercise of that right, and for what purpose. I'll even give you the bill of rights below so you don't have to trod off into the internet ether...

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A 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.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[ScipioCowboy]

And I reject that argument completely... if it were an invasion of our privacy to require us to register our firearms, it would also be an invasion of privacy to require us to register our car, our pet, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

Clearly, the courts do not consider the act of registering some piece of your property to be a violation of your privacy... in fact, the precedent is well-established that requiring the registration of some piece of your property is constitutional...

Nope, it's quite bogus to equate the registration of firearms with warrantless wiretapping...

It may or may not be the business of government, but unlike warrantless wiretapping, it is NOT a violation of your constitutional rights...

Period... the principle of registering specific possessions you might own is well-established in America, and is not unconstitutional... you simply cannot make a LEGAL argument that would stand up in a court of law that it is...

Again, if it was, it would be illegal for the government to require us to register ANYTHING-- cars, dogs, houses...

Quite the contrary, actually. The comparison is very appropriate; in both cases, the government is collecting information to which it is not entitled--hence the privacy violation.

I've already enumerated the bevy of differences between car registration and the federal registration of firearms. In most cases, the registration of passenger and commercial vehicles is not required if their use is limited to a person's private property. Consequently, going by this precedent (as you seem intent on doing), a person should not be required to register a firearm unless he or she intends to carry it in public.

Furthermore, neither vehicle registration nor land registration is carried out at the federal level. The fact that some registration of property occurs at the state level does not justify all forms of registration. Similarly, the fact that policemen can perform warrantless searches on your property if they are "in pursuit" does not justify all forms of warrantless searches. In most cases, states already require the registration of a firearm as a prerequisite for obtaining a right-to-carry permit...much like they require vehicle registration as a prerequisite to driving on public roads.

[iceberg]

Dude gangs were running New Orleans before and after Katrina.

Guys were running around with illegal AK-47s. They had a good reason to take peoples weapons. They were doing it for their safety.

well as long as they were registered.

"doing it for your own good" - kinda all encompassing isn't it?

that's it. gonna go buy a mossberg or two today.

[theogt]

Quite the contrary, actually. The comparison is very appropriate; in both cases, the government is collecting information to which it is not entitled--hence the privacy violation.

I've already enumerated the bevy of differences between car registration and the federal registration of firearms. In most cases, the registration of passenger and commercial vehicles is not required if their use is limited to a person's private property. Consequently, going by this precedent (as you seem intent on doing), a person should not be required to register a firearm unless he or she intends to carry it in public.

Furthermore, neither vehicle registration nor land registration is carried out at the federal level. The fact that some registration of property occurs at the state level does not justify all forms of registration. Similarly, the fact that policemen can perform warrantless searches on your property if they are "in pursuit" does not justify all forms of warrantless searches. In most cases, states already require the registration of a firearm as a prerequisite for obtaining a right-to-carry permit...much like they require vehicle registration as a prerequisite to driving on public roads.Wire-tapping is similar to gun registration, yet vehicle registration is not?

Some people will argue anything just to stick to their guns (pun intended :p:). Seriously, though, can you really not see how it's absurd to argue both positions?

[silverbear]

Ownership of a car is not a 2nd Amendment right, ownerhip of a pet is not covered under the bill of rights etc etc etc.....ad infinitum....

Do try to pay attention, that is NOT the argument being made at this point... the argument being made is that requiring the registration of firearms intrudes on our right to PRIVACY... note that it was not my argument, I'm merely rebutting it...

And in that context, my observation is both relevant, and valid-- if registering guns is a violation of our right to privacy, then so is registering your car, or your pet...

Gun Ownership is simply a Right.......not to be infringed upon.......

Nothing in that proposed bill infringes on anybody's right to own a gun... unless, of course, you only have JUST enough money to buy the gun, with not enough left over to pay the registration fee... I'd suggest if you're THAT broke, there might be better uses for your money than a gun...

problem is most criminals are democrat voters....they are just protecting their constituency.

I would never have suspected you were capable of saying something so profoundly idiotic, but I'll certainly know better than to take you seriously ever again...

[silverbear]

There are 20,000 gun laws on the books already.........Democrats should enforce or eliminate the 19,999 that are not effective.......

Google UK or Austrailian gun bans and the effects on crime-----

Why would we bother to do that, when NOBODY is talking about banning guns??

What you're doing here is classic right wing deflection; the argument is about REGISTERING firearms, and you try to turn it into one about banning guns...

I would have thought that you'd at least be smart enough to grasp that distinction, but sadly, it appears that I've given you too much credit...

[silverbear]

No, I'm saying the use of your private car, is totally and unequivocally dependent on the use of public property. Therefore, you are responsible for how it affects others.

And you're not responsible for how your gun affects others??

Permit me to suggest that you not try that little theory out in the real world, I'd hate to have to organize a drive to raise your bail in here... :D

At which point is the enumeration of your personal belongings by the government an invasion of your privacy?

Oh, that's easy-- when they start requiring me to register my PORN...

[silverbear]

I defy you, as I did Brain, to pour over the Bill of Rights, and find ONE SINGLE right enumerated therein that you MUST REGISTER to enjoy

First show me where in the Constitution that registering ANYTHING is forbidden... the Constitution guarantees you the right to keep and bare arms, and nothing more... it does not say the government cannot, if it chooses, require that those arms be registered with your local law enforcement...

The mere act of registering your firearms does not in any way infringe on your right to own them...

IOW, your argument is utterly irrelevant... the proposed bill, if passed, would most certainly stand up to scrutiny by SCOTUS...

[sbark]

Why would we bother to do that, when NOBODY is talking about banning guns??

What you're doing here is classic right wing deflection; the argument is about REGISTERING firearms, and you try to turn it into one about banning guns...

I would have thought that you'd at least be smart enough to grasp that distinction, but sadly, it appears that I've given you too much credit...

.,......they wont ban gun in one swoop of legislation......its a methodical process. With the level of paperwork and beuracratic web.....within 1 yr it will make criminals out of 85% of gunowners.......

Then there will be a endless parade of "criminals" on Drive by media and in front of congressional hearings.......

after a few more calculated chess moves......gun will be banned to protect us from ourselves......

Problem is the Left views govt as the solution to all problems..........Conservatives view Govt as the root of all problems....

The Constitution and the facts of any story are Obama's two biggest enemies. The Constitution was written by Founders who feared precisely what's happening. They feared an expanding, never ending, growing government, with more and more power. They did everything they could to build in stops.....which have all been overridden over time.

[silverbear]

Quite the contrary, actually. The comparison is very appropriate; in both cases, the government is collecting information to which it is not entitled--hence the privacy violation.

And the principle of registering certain possessions is well-established, obviously found not to be unconstitutional...

Why would the government be "entitled" to collect information about my car, or my mutt?? But they ARE, aren't they??

I've already enumerated the bevy of differences between car registration and the federal registration of firearms.

The problem is, in the context of your privacy argument, there are no differences, and it's that context that matters here... my car is my possession, my dog is my possession (well, actually I'm pretty sure it's the other way around, but work with me here), and my gun is my possession... if the government has the legal right to require me to register the first two, indeed if it has the legal right to require me to register ANY possession of mine, then it obviously has the legal right to require me to register my weapons...

I mean, you might personally think it's not right, but what you think is right and what's legal appear to be two very different things here...

Let's put it this way-- if that bill passed, I wouldn't advise you to waste your money challenging its constitutionality on privacy grounds... not unless you enjoy pissin' away your money...

Consequently, going by this precedent (as you seem intent on doing), a person should not be required to register a firearm unless he or she intends to carry it in public.

And lo and behold, they ARE required to register it for that purpose... that's basically what a concealed carry permit is, a registration so that law enforcement knows you're packin'...

Thanks for making my point for me, I can't believe I didn't think of that one myself... we already ARE registering SOME firearms...

In most cases, states already require the registration of a firearm as a prerequisite for obtaining a right-to-carry permit...much like they require vehicle registration as a prerequisite to driving on public roads.

And why aren't you working against THAT violation of privacy?? Seems you've already accepted that the state, at whatever level, has the right to register firearms...

[theogt]

.,......they wont ban gun in one swoop of legislation......its a methodical process. With the level of paperwork and beuracratic web.....within 1 yr it will make criminals out of 85% of gunowners.......

Then there will be a endless parade of "criminals" on Drive by media and in front of congressional hearings.......

after a few more calculated chess moves......gun will be banned to protect us from ourselves......

Problem is the Left views govt as the solution to all problems..........Conservatives view Govt as the root of all problems....

The Constitution and the facts of any story are Obama's two biggest enemies. The Constitution was written by Founders who feared precisely what's happening. They feared an expanding, never ending, growing government, with more and more power. They did everything they could to build in stops.....which have all been overridden over time.Slippery slope arguments are fun!!!!!!!!111

[iceberg]

Why would we bother to do that, when NOBODY is talking about banning guns??

What you're doing here is classic right wing deflection; the argument is about REGISTERING firearms, and you try to turn it into one about banning guns...

I would have thought that you'd at least be smart enough to grasp that distinction, but sadly, it appears that I've given you too much credit...

and maybe this is classic left wing deflection "only register - not take them away!"

but why register? we'll overlook that simple question and just keep saying it's no big deal.

how many rights do you lose, even if 1 at a time, before it's a big deal?

[theogt]

but why register? we'll overlook that simple question and just keep saying it's no big deal.Actually, he's answered the question a few times. You're just overlooking the answer.

[iceberg]

Actually, he's answered the question a few times. You're just overlooking the answer.

and you're just overlooking my overall point.

[ShiningStar]

Its all in an effort to slow down gun crimes. They need to know who has these guns. They aren't taking them away.

How is this really slowing down gun crimes, if the criminals didnt have to register the guns to begin with, and you have kids with guns, and you have illegals with guns and you have politicians with guns, how is this an effort to slow it down when the criminals didnt have to go through the proper channels to begin with. Getting illegals guns didnt get harder, it got easier. So how is it an effort?

Its already been proved take guns away, makes life easier for criminals. Give guns back to the people and crime goes down.

Yes politicians do want to take guns away, they are not making this a hidden fact. People always scream to me well guns kill people. No they dont, plain and simple.

We have proven time and time again that you can limit, register, charge, fine, jail good people for following laws and breaking them because they cant keep up, this has not nor probably never will deter the criminals, all we are proving with legislation like this is that it makes the life of a criminal easier.

[theogt]

and you're just overlooking my overall point.No, I understand your overall point. And I've said earlier in the thread, I'm not going to debate how any single person weighs the two issues (safety vs. individual rights). But to ignore the opposing issue, as you're doing, is...well, ignorant.

[silverbear]

.,......they wont ban gun in one swoop of legislation......its a methodical process.

Back away from the NRA propaganda, step out into the real world...

I have no doubt there are some ultraliberals out there who would dearly love to see guns banned... I also have no worries about them, because this is America, and it'll never happen... there are FAR too many people who love guns to stand still for that...

For example, long before it came to that, I'd be on your side... I support the registration of firearms, and I can even support the banning of assault weapons (since the ONLY purpose for them is mass murder)... but I'd jump off the wagon when they started talking about banning handguns, and for sure I'd be long gone before they started coming after sporting weapons (shotguns, high-powered semi-auto rifles, etc.)...

IOW, put your poor, paranoid brain at rest, nobody's gonna be banning guns in America in our lifetime... the majority of Americans will never support it...

Even a lot of liberals like to go duck hunting, and deer hunting...

With the level of paperwork and beuracratic web.....within 1 yr it will make criminals out of 85% of gunowners.......

It will be no harder to register your weapon than it is to register your car... if 85 per cent of gunowners become criminals because of that, they ought to be in jail for being STUPID...

Then there will be a endless parade of "criminals" on Drive by media and in front of congressional hearings.......

after a few more calculated chess moves......gun will be banned to protect us from ourselves......

Oh man, you ARE in the full grip of paranoia...

Problem is the Left views govt as the solution to all problems..........Conservatives view Govt as the root of all problems....

Oh, gimme a break with that lame crapola... yeah, Conservatives view government as "the root of all problems"... and yet, they want you to make them PART of that government...

Why would anybody want to be part of the problem??

[masomenos]

Just like OGT refused to see the stupidity so does Silver (much less surprised there).

OGT never answered my question about knives. Thousands of people are killed/injured each year by knives. Should not they be registered?
The only difference between firearms and knives is the number of victims. everything else is the same. So if you register one because it would help fight crime then you should register the other for the same reason.

Well, registering knives would be impossible because they have a large number of purposes. You use knives to butter bread, to cut fishing line, to whittle small horses out of wood. The utility of a knife is, largely, non violent. The same is true for blunt instruments like baseball bats and tire irons. With guns, their purpose revolves around violence, whether the gun is used for hunting, defense or as a murder weapon.

You make an important distinction though, the number of gun victims is higher than the number of knife victims. The benefit/cost ratio is much greater when a law like this focuses on guns rather than something like knives.

[silverbear]

Slippery slope arguments are fun!!!!!!!!111

My personal favorite was the Domino Theory, in Vietnam... I can still remember my American History teacher my junior year in high school, expounding on that theory-- "Vietnam falls, Cambodia follows soon after, then Laos... pretty soon, all of Indochina has gone Communist... then next up, you have India; do you want a billion Indians going Communist??"

I remember I really liked that teacher, but when I think of that little bit of wisdom he tried to impart, all I can do is laugh...

Of course, this particular slippery slope argument is the NRA's version of the Domino Theory, and it's every bit as asinine as the original was...

The NRA long ago figured out there was big money in scare tactics, and that's all they seem to be about any more... I can remember when they were known mostly for conducting hunter safety classes, back before they decided to go after the big bucks by going political...

[silverbear]

and maybe this is classic left wing deflection "only register - not take them away!"

but why register? we'll overlook that simple question and just keep saying it's no big deal.

No need to overlook that question, there's an easy and obvious answer... I'll bet if you tried real hard, you could figure out the justification for registering firearms...

how many rights do you lose, even if 1 at a time, before it's a big deal?

Registering firearms will not cost me a single right... the right is to own firearms, and registration does not prevent that from happening...

Unless, of course, you're a convicted felon, or a mental patient... but I'm guessing you'd have no problems with the government keeping firearms out of their hands...

Would you??

[iceberg]

No need to overlook that question, there's an easy and obvious answer... I'll bet if you tried real hard, you could figure out the justification for registering firearms...

Registering firearms will not cost me a single right... the right is to own firearms, and registration does not prevent that from happening...

Unless, of course, you're a convicted felon, or a mental patient... but I'm guessing you'd have no problems with the government keeping firearms out of their hands...

Would you??

don't they check that before they can even buy one?
and if they know they can't own one, are you suggesting they'd simply confess if this law were passed or add it to their list of "infractions"?

tell me again why thsi has to be done moreso than it already is?

[iceberg]

No, I understand your overall point. And I've said earlier in the thread, I'm not going to debate how any single person weighs the two issues (safety vs. individual rights). But to ignore the opposing issue, as you're doing, is...well, ignorant.

who said i'm ignoring it? stop making up my side of the discussion please.

[silverbear]

don't they check that before they can even buy one?
and if they know they can't own one, are you suggesting they'd simply confess if this law were passed or add it to their list of "infractions"?

tell me again why thsi has to be done moreso than it already is?

OK, on this point, I yield...

[vta]

And you're not responsible for how your gun affects others??

Permit me to suggest that you not try that little theory out in the real world, I'd hate to have to organize a drive to raise your bail in here... :D

You cannot use your car without using public property.
Your gun can stay in your house and never affect anyone.

Oh, that's easy-- when they start requiring me to register my PORN...

Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you! ;)
Hide your stash!

[Rowdy]

Fear sells. Always has. And Paranoia sells like hotcakes.

Seems the new President is quite good at using these tactics as of late.

[sbark]

don't they check that before they can even buy one?
and if they know they can't own one, are you suggesting they'd simply confess if this law were passed or add it to their list of "infractions"?

tell me again why thsi has to be done moreso than it already is?

......correct : 20,000 some odd gun laws already on the books........enforce them......

[theogt]

who said i'm ignoring it? stop making up my side of the discussion please.Uh....you did.

but why register? we'll overlook that simple question and just keep saying it's no big deal.He answered the question several times and you're still asking it.

[masomenos]

......correct : 20,000 some odd gun laws already on the books........enforce them......

That's a made up number.

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

[silverbear]

You cannot use your car without using public property.
Your gun can stay in your house and never affect anyone.

Some folks, the gun might never leave the house, but most folks who have a gun tend to want to take it out and shoot it every once in a while...

Even me... :D

Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you! ;)
Hide your stash!


On that day, I'll lead the coup... :D

This reminds me of a dated joke:

Around the time of the Nixon/Watergate fiasco, this old, rich Republican was conversing in the grille room of his local country club, and when the subject turned to the embattled prez, he said:

"You know, I've been a Republican all my life, my Dad was a Republican before me... I've supported Dick Nixon through all of his trials and troubles... but now I read that he's talking about taxing whiskey, and golf balls" (note-- Nixon did at one time say something much like that)...

So now I say impeach the ***...

[silverbear]

That's a made up number.

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

Don't blame him, he probably got the number from Rush... we all know that Rush regularly pulls numbers out of his ample backside...

[DragonCowboy]

oh man...does this mean I have to register my huge biceps? :D

[iceberg]

Uh....you did.

He answered the question several times and you're still asking it.

it's so rare when people get my sarcasm. this isn't one of those rare times however.

my question was an example, nevermind. you're right, i'm wrong, 10 more minutes of ITT Tech for me.

[masomenos]

oh man...does this mean I have to register my huge biceps? :D

:lmao2:

[sbark]

Don't blame him, he probably got the number from Rush... we all know that Rush regularly pulls numbers out of his ample backside...

Irrelavent........if there are only 200 gun laws.......they basically already state how to purch, who can purch, when they can be transported, concealed carry laws.........and they are not being enforced.....

.....or cannot be enforced....

......Is Paranoia the new D.Kos catch phrase?...........or is it something Obama read off a teleprompter?

You state something to the effect---if certain type of gun control go to far, you'd then jump camp..........ya right....

would seem to me that is probably what the bolchevik collaborators told the landowners in Russia right before the Revolution-----

[ScipioCowboy]

Wire-tapping is similar to gun registration, yet vehicle registration is not?

There are far more differences between federal gun registration and state vehicle registration than there are between federal gun registration and warrantless wiretapping performed by the federal government.

Vehicle registration is managed by the state. Federal gun registration is, well, federal. You of all people should be able to appreciate the importance of that distinction.:p:

Furthermore, (as I've said numerous times) in the vast majority of cases, registration is only required if the vehicle is going to be used on public roads. It isn't required for vehicles being operated only on private premises. Federal gun registration would apply to any firearm, regardless of where it is kept--public property or private property.

[JBond]

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the wiretapping endeavors undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, it's not as if anyone's Constitutional rights were actually circumvented, correct?

You're certainly free to attribute disparaging emotions and motivations to those who would oppose this measure, but their concerns remain valid...just as the concerns of those who opposed the Patriot Act are very valid.
:hammer:

[silverbear]

Irrelavent.....

No, it's not... it's not because it demonstrates that your grasp of the facts of this debate are shaky at best, nonexistent at worst... and that calls into reasonable question any other opinions you might express in here...

......Is Paranoia the new D.Kos catch phrase?

I wouldn't know, I've never been there...

The truth is much simpler-- I'm seeing rampant right wing paranoia in this thread, and I'm commenting on it/laughing at it...

You state something to the effect---if certain type of gun control go to far, you'd then jump camp..........ya right....

Yeah, right... you might not like my opinions, but nobody can accuse me of being dishonest... I say what I mean, and I mean what I say...

would seem to me that is probably what the bolchevik collaborators told the landowners in Russia right before the Revolution-----

I'm quite sure that Bolshevism is another subject that you know nothing about... but I base that only on your inability to spell "bolshevik" correctly...

[ScipioCowboy]

And the principle of registering certain possessions is well-established, obviously found not to be unconstitutional...

There's also an established principle of wiretapping without a warrant as well as searching and seizing without a warrant. However, the fact that a principle exists does not justify the practice in every possible situation.

You're overlooking the subtle issue of degree. For instance, the fact that I can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater does not entitle the government to censor my speech whenever it wants.

The problem is, in the context of your privacy argument, there are no differences, and it's that context that matters here... my car is my possession, my dog is my possession (well, actually I'm pretty sure it's the other way around, but work with me here), and my gun is my possession... if the government has the legal right to require me to register the first two, indeed if it has the legal right to require me to register ANY possession of mine, then it obviously has the legal right to require me to register my weapons... Untrue.

State governments require vehicle registration based on where you operate your vehicle, not merely on grounds that you own a vehicle. Conversely, this new law would require gun registration merely on grounds that you own firearm, not where you're carrying your firearm.


I mean, you might personally think it's not right, but what you think is right and what's legal appear to be two very different things here...

Let's put it this way-- if that bill passed, I wouldn't advise you to waste your money challenging its constitutionality on privacy grounds... not unless you enjoy pissin' away your money...

And lo and behold, they ARE required to register it for that purpose... that's basically what a concealed carry permit is, a registration so that law enforcement knows you're packin'...

Thanks for making my point for me, I can't believe I didn't think of that one myself... we already ARE registering SOME firearms...

And why aren't you working against THAT violation of privacy?? Seems you've already accepted that the state, at whatever level, has the right to register firearms...Actually, you just made my point. There are already laws in place at the state level that require registration in order to carry a firearm outside my private premises.

Vehicle registration laws and current state firearm registration laws are not violations of privacy because, in the vast majority of cases, they only apply outside my private premises and within public domains, which are owned by the state.

[JBond]

I never registered to have phones wire tapped...and apparently the government was not registered, or getting the paper work through a judge, to wire tap either. Heck I was only made aware of it later. However in this case my right to bear arms is not being stripped away...it would just require me to register the gun. Just like I have to register to vote. Just like I must register to sign up for this forum, or a new email address online somewhere, or to take a criminal background check for some jobs, or to take a drug test for some jobs and a multitude of other things...but they give you the choice to do that. If I don't want to register to get a gun...I don't have to get a gun. Or I can buy one from someone without any paperwork and do not register it once I get it.

The whole argument I made weeks ago was that I do not think they will be coming around door to door to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY. To which some of these guys want to be a wise guy and act like that means I am totally against the 2nd amendment and hate all gun owners and think nobody should have guns and whatever.



Nice try though.:D

Brain, This is what pisses off gun owners. The criminals can buy guns anywhere and time they feel the urge. They can purchase assault weapons if they feel like it. C4, .50 sniper rifles. Whatever they want.

Why do the law abiding tax paying citizens who already have to fill out multiple government forms to buy a gun, and God forbid take it with them, for self defense now have to jump through more hoops for a right guaranteed under the constitution.

You must also look at history. Every fascist leader follows the same pattern. They look to subjugate the primary religion followed, and they look to disarm the populace. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.

All of these a-holes had the same idea.

[JBond]

New Orleans 2005.

Bingo! Just yell disaster loud enough, get the media to spread your propaganda, and the government can abolish your rights whenever they feel like it.

BP You were against the Patriot Act correct? How do you feel about Abraham Lincoln jailing anyone who disagreed with him?

[JBond]

Well, registering knives would be impossible because they have a large number of purposes. You use knives to butter bread, to cut fishing line, to whittle small horses out of wood. The utility of a knife is, largely, non violent.


Except on airplanes.

[silverbear]

Actually, you just made my point. There are already laws in place at the state level that require registration in order to carry a firearm outside my private premises.

So we already HAVE gun registration... which means HR45 only EXPANDS on that...

And if it's constitutional for the government to require the registration of concealed firearms, it's obviously not unconsititutional for it to require registration of ALL firearms...

Vehicle registration laws and current state firearm registration laws are not violations of privacy because, in the vast majority of cases, they only apply outside my private premises and within public domains, which are owned by the state.

Try that argument in a court of law, let me know how it goes, counselor...

[silverbear]

Why do the law abiding tax paying citizens who already have to fill out multiple government forms to buy a gun, and God forbid take it with them, for self defense now have to jump through more hoops for a right guaranteed under the constitution.

Jay-sus H Jumped Up , but that's a STUPID argument... registering a firearm couldn't possibly take more than about 10-15 minutes out of your life... to try to pass that off as some kind of onerous burden is just ASININE...

[quote]You must also look at history. Every fascist leader follows the same pattern. They look to subjugate the primary religion followed, and they look to disarm the populace. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.[/qauote]

Uhhh, this is not a fascist society, so your comparison is quite silly...

[JBond]

Just like there are conditions for owning a car, like REGISTERING it...


Why do you feel a compulsion to give the Federal government money for the privilege of owning a car or home that you have already paid taxes on when you purchased it?

[masomenos]

Except on airplanes.

That doesn't change what I said at all.

[JBond]

My personal favorite was the Domino Theory, in Vietnam... I can still remember my American History teacher my junior year in high school, expounding on that theory-- "Vietnam falls, Cambodia follows soon after, then Laos... pretty soon, all of Indochina has gone Communist... then next up, you have India; do you want a billion Indians going Communist??"

Of course, this particular slippery slope argument is the NRA's version of the Domino Theory, and it's every bit as asinine as the original was...


So what happened after we abandoned South Vietnam? What happened in Cambodia? Laos?

What form of government is there in those countries? Are those the types of governments you rather live under than what you enjoy in the USA?

[JBond]

Jay-sus H Jumped Up , but that's a STUPID argument... registering a firearm couldn't possibly take more than about 10-15 minutes out of your life... to try to pass that off as some kind of onerous burden is just ASININE...

Uhhh, this is not a fascist society, so your comparison is quite silly...

How many times should I have to redo the same thing I have already done?

Obama is a fascist that is using Marxist principles to achieve his desired end result.:D

[JBond]

That doesn't change what I said at all.

Except that knives led to the greatest terrorist attack in the history of our great nation and now they are banned.

Beyond that I am sure you had a valid point somewhere in your post.;)

[masomenos]

Except that knives led to the greatest terrorist attack in the history of our great nation and now they are banned.

Beyond that I am sure you had a valid point somewhere in your post.;)

To steal from gun rights logic, wouldn't it be safer if everyone on the plane was allowed to carry a knife, that way they could defend against the bad guys?

Really though, that knives were used in the 9/11 hijacking doesn't change the fact that most knives are used in a non-violent manner. Of course knives should be banned on airplanes, but that doesn't mean that all knives should be registered.

As a side note: Isn't it weird that you can still carry scissors and screwdrivers onto airplanes?

[daschoo]

As a side note: Isn't it weird that you can still carry scissors and screwdrivers onto airplanes?


thats mental!!! in the u.k. you cant take a safety pin on a plane, i've had a kilt pin confiscated before :mad:

[JBond]

To steal from gun rights logic, wouldn't it be safer if everyone on the plane was allowed to carry a knife, that way they could defend against the bad guys?


Think about that for a minute.......

Is it coming to you yet?

Could 9/11 been averted or at least mitigated. Think long and hard about this.

Do you assume most people are good or bad people? How many US planes have been taken over with pocket knives?

People get hit by cars every day. We should ban cars, right?

[masomenos]

Think about that for a minute.......

Is it coming to you yet?

Could 9/11 been averted or at least mitigated. Think long and hard about this.

Do you assume most people are good or bad people? How many US planes have been taken over with pocket knives?

People get hit by cars every day. We should ban cars, right?

I'm not saying that we should ban guns (or knives, or cars) in fact, I own a gun, an unregistered rifle.

You're kind of all over the place though, I'm not even sure what your point is. Do I think that 9/11 could have been averted by what, other people carrying knives on the plane? No. Or are you asking something else?

[masomenos]

thats mental!!! in the u.k. you cant take a safety pin on a plane, i've had a kilt pin confiscated before :mad:

You can also carry matches, compressed gas canisters, wrenches and pliers (up to 7 inches in length). But you can't bring on snow globes, lol.

And of course ceramic knives which don't have "safety metal" in their composition are completely undetectable by metal detectors.

[JBond]

I'm not saying that we should ban guns (or knives, or cars) in fact, I own a gun, an unregistered rifle.

You're kind of all over the place though, I'm not even sure what your point is. Do I think that 9/11 could have been averted by what, other people carrying knives on the plane? No. Or are you asking something else?

Maybe I am wrong but it seemed as if you were supporting more gun legislation. How would have banning knives before 911 stopped the horror that followed. The bad guys got the knives anyway. The bad guys will always have access to weapons.

[theogt]

There are far more differences between federal gun registration and state vehicle registration than there are between federal gun registration and warrantless wiretapping performed by the federal government.

Vehicle registration is managed by the state. Federal gun registration is, well, federal. You of all people should be able to appreciate the importance of that distinction.:p:

Furthermore, (as I've said numerous times) in the vast majority of cases, registration is only required if the vehicle is going to be used on public roads. It isn't required for vehicles being operated only on private premises. Federal gun registration would apply to any firearm, regardless of where it is kept--public property or private property.Oh, I could sit here and list 1000 ways one is more different than the other. We can spin anything in any way we want. But, really, it's all very silly when you step back and think.

[masomenos]

Maybe I am wrong but it seemed as if you were supporting more gun legislation. How would have banning knives before 911 stopped the horror that followed. The bad guys got the knives anyway. The bad guys will always have access to weapons.

I think that we are on completely different pages, lol.

My first post was in response to burm who was arguing with Theo over the idea that if guns have to be registered than so should knives. Guns and knives are totally different though, so I said why I thought that logic was flawed. Just because guns require background checks and registration doesn't mean that everything that is a potential weapon requires the same restrictions.

Now, the post where I started off by saying "To steal a line from gun rights logic...", I was just bringing up a hypothetical. I think that we're safer not letting everyone carry knives on a plane, I'm a fan of that restriction. Also, even though I own a gun, I'm a fan of some of the restrictions that are in place via gun laws. I don't think that people who commit violent, weapons related, crimes should be allowed to own a firearm. I also don't have any problem with registering weapons, I don't think that infringes on my 2nd amendment right at all. Now, I would have to read through the entire bill to see what all it entails, and I haven't done that, so I can't say whether or not this is good legislation.

I agree with you though, bad guys will always have access to weapons.

[JBond]

I think that we are on completely different pages, lol.

My first post was in response to burm who was arguing with Theo over the idea that if guns have to be registered than so should knives. Guns and knives are totally different though, so I said why I thought that logic was flawed. Just because guns require background checks and registration doesn't mean that everything that is a potential weapon requires the same restrictions.

Now, the post where I started off by saying "To steal a line from gun rights logic...", I was just bringing up a hypothetical. I think that we're safer not letting everyone carry knives on a plane, I'm a fan of that restriction. Also, even though I own a gun, I'm a fan of some of the restrictions that are in place via gun laws. I don't think that people who commit violent, weapons related, crimes should be allowed to own a firearm. I also don't have any problem with registering weapons, I don't think that infringes on my 2nd amendment right at all. Now, I would have to read through the entire bill to see what all it entails, and I haven't done that, so I can't say whether or not this is good legislation.

I agree with you though, bad guys will always have access to weapons.

There are many shades of grey. It is nice to have a back and forth that does not break down into craziness. I'm just pissed because a silver money clip my grandfather gave me had a 3/4 fold out knife that was confiscated by the union security people and thrown away. I was not even given the opportunity to try to mail it back to myself. I had forgotten it even had a tiny little blade on it. I used it to carry cash and ID.

[masomenos]

There are many shades of grey. It is nice to have a back and forth that does not break down into craziness. I'm just pissed because a silver money clip my grandfather gave me had a 3/4 fold out knife that was confiscated by the union security people and thrown away. I was not even given the opportunity to try to mail it back to myself. I had forgotten it even had a tiny little blade on it. I used it to carry cash and ID.

Oh man, that does suck. I've heard some really bad stories about TSA agents being real ***** to people. There's no reason that the couldn't have let you mail it back to yourself.

[ScipioCowboy]

So we already HAVE gun registration... which means HR45 only EXPANDS on that...

We have state-controlled gun registration for concealed carry in public places--which is far different than federal gun registration for a firearm that I keep at my private residence.

Your logic can also be used to justify the Bush administration's wiretapping endeavors. After all, Bush was merely trying to "expand" the wiretapping privileges that the government already has, right?

And if it's constitutional for the government to require the registration of concealed firearms, it's obviously not unconsititutional for it to require registration of ALL firearms... Hardly.

This is akin to arguing that, because law enforcement has the right to conduct warrantless searches of my property if it's in hot pursuit, it has the right to conduct a warrantless search at any time.

Current firearm registration laws (just like current vehicle registration laws) only apply to usage in public places. This proposed firearm law would apply to firearms in private residences.

There's a chasmic legal difference between public and private.

[silverbear]

So what happened after we abandoned South Vietnam? What happened in Cambodia? Laos?

What form of government is there in those countries? Are those the types of governments you rather live under than what you enjoy in the USA?

Those countries were ALREADY Communist by the time Vietnam fell... and how did the rest of the Domino Theory play out?? Is all of Indochina communist today?? The folks in Thailand will be rather surprised to hear that... is India communist today??

Clearly, the fall of South Vietnam did not lead to a vast expansion of communism in Southeast Asia... the Domino Theory was garbage...

[silverbear]

How many times should I have to redo the same thing I have already done?

However many floats your boat, I'm long past taking any argument you make seriously... LOL...

[silverbear]

Except that knives led to the greatest terrorist attack in the history of our great nation and now they are banned.

Actually, that was box cutters, which are a bit different from knives...

[silverbear]

You're kind of all over the place though, I'm not even sure what your point is.

C'mon, don't be disingenuous... you know perfectly well what his point is...

His point is to snarl about absolutely everything Obama does or proposes... he dreams of being the anti-Obama... :D

[silverbear]

Maybe I am wrong but it seemed as if you were supporting more gun legislation. How would have banning knives before 911 stopped the horror that followed. The bad guys got the knives anyway. The bad guys will always have access to weapons.


So the answer is to give everybody concealed weapons permits... no, scratch that, the answer is to make carrying a concealed weapon mandatory...

Because God knows, having everyone running around armed sure made the Wild West a safe, peaceful place... ;)

[silverbear]

There are many shades of grey. It is nice to have a back and forth that does not break down into craziness. I'm just pissed because a silver money clip my grandfather gave me had a 3/4 fold out knife that was confiscated by the union security people and thrown away. I was not even given the opportunity to try to mail it back to myself. I had forgotten it even had a tiny little blade on it. I used it to carry cash and ID.

I've gotta admit, that doesn't seem right... it sucks that you had to lose an heirloom that was obviously special to you because of bureaucracy...

[silverbear]

We have state-controlled gun registration for concealed carry in public places--which is far different than federal gun registration for a firearm that I keep at my private residence.

Now you're just engaging in semantic tapdancing... although the state does control gun registration, it cannot pass laws that would violate the US Constitution... thus, if those state laws are on the books and have not been found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, then they're obviously not a violation of federal law...

States can't pass laws that violate the Constitution...

So, we have a clearly established precedent, that gun registration is not unconstitutional... thus, there's no reason that HR45 would be...

Your distinctions about "private" versus "public", and "state" versus "federal" are completely irrelevant...

Your logic can also be used to justify the Bush administration's wiretapping endeavors. After all, Bush was merely trying to "expand" the wiretapping privileges that the government already has, right?

SCOTUS says you're wrong... and I'm saying that if HR45 becomes law, it will stand up to scrutiny by that body...

There's a chasmic legal difference between public and private.

Not in this case... the precedent has been established, that requiring the registration of firearms is constitutional... if it wasn't, the state couldn't require concealed weapons permits...

And how are we to know that you do not intend to EVER take your firearm into the public domain, that the ONLY reason you want it is to have it in your nightstand drawer for home protection?? Most folks eventually wind up taking their weapon into the public domain, damn few weapons stay in that nightstand drawer permanently, only to be removed for periodic cleaning...

IOW, ANY gun might eventually become "public", rather than "private"... if nothing else, it might get STOLEN by someone who intends to use it in a very public manner...

But hey, maybe they can pass an amendment to that bill, and say that if you sign an affidavit solemnly swearing that you'll never, ever take the gun off your property, and you'll never, ever allow it to be stolen, you don't need to register it... LOL...

[masomenos]

Actually, that was box cutters, which are a bit different from knives...

Box cutters are knives.

[masomenos]

C'mon, don't be disingenuous... you know perfectly well what his point is...

His point is to snarl about absolutely everything Obama does or proposes... he dreams of being the anti-Obama... :D

I don't think that JBond is anti-Obama, I think that he is pro-country. Like all of us, he has a standard of the ideal America. JBond does they same thing that we all do in our posts, we defend our ideological perspective. I believe that JBond would give Obama credit if he felt that the credit was due.

[masomenos]

IOW, ANY gun might eventually become "public", rather than "private"... if nothing else, it might get STOLEN by someone who intends to use it in a very public manner...



An unregistered private vehicle has equal potential of entering the public sector.

[silverbear]

Box cutters are knives.

No, they're razors... specifically, retractable razors...

[silverbear]

I don't think that JBond is anti-Obama, I think that he is pro-country.

I think he's both, actually... and I think his anti-Obama bias is quite plain for all to see...

I believe that JBond would give Obama credit if he felt that the credit was due.

I'm quite sure he wouldn't...

[burmafrd]

Silver has no problem with the feds now that his messiah is president. Simple as that.

Those arguing for FEDERAL GUN REGISTRATION are exactly the same.

Once this is in the computer anyone can find out. And you can then be a target for theft. The more data in the computer about you the worse it is.

But the long and short of it is that it will NOT be worth the expense and more bureaucrats that it will generate. The number of crimes it MAY solve will not be worth the end result.
Do any of you have any idea how much this will cost?

[ZeroClub]

I've just read through the first 200+ posts in this thread. Overall, I'm struck by the nasty tone in many of the posts.

[LatinMind]

Reading these posts are funny, and i can see why the admins decided to remove the political forum before.

[sbark]

I've just read through the first 200+ posts in this thread. Overall, I'm struck by the nasty tone in many of the posts.

because your essentially talking religion----Gun Rights is a relgion of the Conservative Right....

The Left has their multitude of "religions" that they are zealots over---Global Warmers, Envrio's, Big Govt, Abortion, High Taxes, Anti-Religion..........

.....and they get just as rabid over them...if not a heck of alot moreso....thier demonstrations are always on the verge of anarchy.

.......The only Diff.....Gun Rights is given as a 2nd Amendment......vrs all the others..

If the Left would stop jamming their religions up everyones rectum...and stop trying to take away everyone elses religions .........the nasty tone would subside.....

[sbark]

Montana taking moves to cut of Fed gun Laws at the border.......

http://www.kxmb.com/News/332566.asp

By KAHRIN DEINES Associated Press Writer HELENA, Mont. (AP) Firearms manufactured and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, under a bill the Montana House is supporting.

House Bill 246 aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill could have the effect of releasing Montana gun owners from federal registration requirements.

.........add another angle to the states pushing the 10 amendment back at D.C..........

but the 10th is just a speedbump, much as the 1st and 2nd.......for Holder and Rahm.....its the challenge on how to circumvent them........

[iceberg]

I think he's both, actually... and I think his anti-Obama bias is quite plain for all to see...

I'm quite sure he wouldn't...

much like you and bush, huh? or is only *your* hate ok?

[sbark]

Silver has no problem with the feds now that his messiah is president. Simple as that.

Those arguing for FEDERAL GUN REGISTRATION are exactly the same.

Once this is in the computer anyone can find out. And you can then be a target for theft. The more data in the computer about you the worse it is.

But the long and short of it is that it will NOT be worth the expense and more bureaucrats that it will generate. The number of crimes it MAY solve will not be worth the end result.
Do any of you have any idea how much this will cost?

...right.....and notice the gun owner "that allows" his guns to be stolen is the bigger of the 2 criminals....:eek:

[iceberg]

...right.....and notice the gun owner "that allows" his guns to be stolen is the bigger of the 2 criminals....:eek:

and how many normal people *allow* their property to be stolen?

[JBond]

I don't think that JBond is anti-Obama, I think that he is pro-country. Like all of us, he has a standard of the ideal America. JBond does they same thing that we all do in our posts, we defend our ideological perspective. I believe that JBond would give Obama credit if he felt that the credit was due.

Thank you.:draw:

[sbark]

and how many normal people *allow* their property to be stolen?

it will be the govt's perception.......some beuracrat 2000 miles away will make that decision

[masomenos]

No, they're razors... specifically, retractable razors...

Box cutters are a form utility knife.

[ThaBigP]

So we already HAVE gun registration... which means HR45 only EXPANDS on that...

And if it's constitutional for the government to require the registration of concealed firearms, it's obviously not unconsititutional for it to require registration of ALL firearms...



Try that argument in a court of law, let me know how it goes, counselor...

That *is* true, and you *can* use that argument in court. You are not required to register, inspect, or insure a vehicle that is never operated on public roadways.

[masomenos]

That *is* true, and you *can* use that argument in court. You are not required to register, inspect, or insure a vehicle that is never operated on public roadways.

Well, I think the counter argument would be that private use vehicles are often in relatively isolated areas. On the other hand, home defense firearms are often in areas of much greater population density. So, the likelihood that a private firearm would enter the public sector is greater than the likelihood that a private use vehicle would enter the public realm. Because of that, they have to be treated differently.

[MetalHead]

I've just read through the first 200+ posts in this thread. Overall, I'm struck by the nasty tone in many of the posts.

It's a touchy and volatile subject.

[MetalHead]

That *is* true, and you *can* use that argument in court. You are not required to register, inspect, or insure a vehicle that is never operated on public roadways.
That is 100% true.

[MetalHead]

Well, I think the counter argument would be that private use vehicles are often in relatively isolated areas. On the other hand, home defense firearms are often in areas of much greater population density. So, the likelihood that a private firearm would enter the public sector is greater than the likelihood that a private use vehicle would enter the public realm. Because of that, they have to be treated differently.

It comes down to the law abiding citizen.

[ThaBigP]

Well, I think the counter argument would be that private use vehicles are often in relatively isolated areas. On the other hand, home defense firearms are often in areas of much greater population density. So, the likelihood that a private firearm would enter the public sector is greater than the likelihood that a private use vehicle would enter the public realm. Because of that, they have to be treated differently.

It's not an issue of how "isolated" that private property may be...if a vehicle is never used on public roadways, there is no requirement to register, inspect, or insure that vehicle in order to operate it, so long as while the vehicle is not registered, inspected, or insured it is never operated on public roadways. There are other things that could bite you in the arse if you are in a neighborhood...HOAs generally don't like abandoned vehicles in view, and you sign a contract to that effect. They contractually define "abandoned" as a vehicle lacking current registration and inspection. Again, though, that is not by ordinance but rather a contract between private parties. You can have a car as out-of-date as you want in your garage, well out of sight. In general practice, though, this applies to people who own enough property that a vehicle could be driven on property without hitting public roadways.

It is the fact that a vehicle is used on public roadways that is the legal reasoning for the power to tax and regulate their usage. I don't necessarily disagree with that...if you want to drive an usafe vehicle 100mph everywhere you go, you have all the right in this country to purchase land and build your own private roadway to drive in any manner that suits you.

This is also the legal rationale for registering to obtain a conceal/carry permit...you're taking your firearm concealed into public in a "ready-to-fire" condition - loaded and perhaps even chambered (although some argue it's never a good idea to chamber the first round...I'll leave that up to debate).

I do, however, disagree with the notion that we should proceed to make gun owners register and itemize their weapons kept in private homes. For me, the issue comes down to trust. This government has pretty much demonstrated with crystal clarity they shouldn't be trusted with anything sharper than a loaf of bread, much less the creation of law or "managing" the economy.

[CowboyMcCoy]

http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_St... (http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/Under_Cover_of_a_Stimulus_Bill_Congress_Seeks_to_O verturn_the_Second_Amendment11500.shtml)


Under Cover of a "Stimulus" Bill, Congress Seeks to Overturn the Second Amendment
By Ken Anderson
Feb 12, 2009 - 10:41:20 AM

Email this article
Printer friendly page


In a Bill introduced on the first day of the present session of Congress, with no coverage from the mainstream media, H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) targets gun owners in the United States. While everyone's attention was on the bogus "stimulus" plan to print and spend trillions of tax dollars, this legislation is worming its way through the House and Senate.

This Bill will strip us of the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. It requires the registration of all new guns during the first two years after enactment. After two years, the new law goes retroactive, mandating that all firearms in a citizen's possession be registered, not just those purchased after the enactment of the law. This apparently applies to antique firearms as well.

.......more in link........

I don't like this portion of the bill. It doesn't necessarily violate the right to bear arms, but it seems like a privacy issue to me.

[MetalHead]

I don't like this portion of the bill. It doesn't necessarily violate the right to bear arms, but it seems like a privacy issue to me.
Definitely a step in the wrong direction.
We all know every single trip begins with a single step.
But I'm paranoid.

[CowboyMcCoy]

You know this is so funny.

I enjoy a good firearm. And when I go into local gun stores, I see stickers, buttons, T shirts, bumper stickers all saying how Obama is going to take away every gun on the planet.

It just makes me laugh, laugh, laugh.

Paranoia runs rampant in these stores, and most of the people who work in them are lucky to have GED's.

I got a magazine I subscribe too in the mail the other day "Guns and Ammo" or "Combat guns", I don't remember cause I subscribe to both. Anyway, the editorial was all about how if you've ever wanted an assault rifle, you need to buy it NOW. Not next week, not next month, buy it NOW, because Obama was going to take them off the shelves tomorrow.

I just shook my head and laughed. How much do you think this editor took in form of a kickback from some gun manufacturers?

Fear sells. Always has. And Paranoia sells like hotcakes.

A smart investor would invest in gun manufacturers, then pull out at the right moment. There are benefits to being informed about legislation. You can follow the money.

I assume at least some of this bill is designed for the smart investor, who might read through it to see what affects it may have on which sectors of the market, etc.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Definitely a step in the wrong direction.
We all know every single trip begins with a single step.
But I'm paranoid.

...as i can tell from you avi. :(

[MetalHead]

If that was a college course, you'd be the professor...
Takes one to know one.

[MetalHead]

I suspect that's true every day in your house...

Ok SenileBear...I hear ya.

[MetalHead]

...as i can tell from you avi. :(

What Avi?

[CowboyMcCoy]

What Avi?

i'm not sure

[ScipioCowboy]

So, we have a clearly established precedent, that gun registration is not unconstitutional... thus, there's no reason that HR45 would be...


You're fallaciously treating all gun registration laws as if they're identical, and erroneously assuming that there's no difference between the types of laws the government can pass in public and the types it can pass in private.

Your argument is essentially this: State governments can require registration of firearms that will be carried in public; therefore, the federal government has the power to require registration of firearms that will be kept solely on private property.

This is simply untrue. There's a huge difference between the things I can legally say and do in public and the things I can legally say and do in the privacy of my own home. For instance, many states and cities have laws against intoxication in public--laws that are not considered unconstitutional. However, a law that would prohibit intoxication within the privacy of one's own home is most certainly unconstitutional. The only difference between the two laws is that one regulates behavior in public and the other attempts to regulate behavior on private premises.

Now you're just engaging in semantic tapdancing... although the state does control gun registration, it cannot pass laws that would violate the US Constitution... thus, if those state laws are on the books and have not been found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, then they're obviously not a violation of federal law...

States can't pass laws that violate the Constitution...

Not in this case... the precedent has been established, that requiring the registration of firearms is constitutional... if it wasn't, the state couldn't require concealed weapons permits...So, to summarize your position:

1) The difference between state laws and federal laws is purely semantic.

2) The difference between the laws the government can pass in the private realm and those it can pass in the public realm is purely semantic as well.

Interesting assertion. However, as I've already demonstrated, it's deeply flawed.

The fact that states cannot pass unconstitutional laws does not mean, or even intimate, that state and federal governments have identical powers. For example, let's return to our public intoxication example. The federal government has no constitutional power to prohibit public drunkenness; therefore, all public intoxication laws are passed and enforced by state and local governments. This is a clear example of the state having a power that the federal government does not, as protected under the Tenth Amendment.

SCOTUS says you're wrong... and I'm saying that if HR45 becomes law, it will stand up to scrutiny by that body...No. It doesn't.

It hasn't even examined this particular bill.

And how are we to know that you do not intend to EVER take your firearm into the public domain, that the ONLY reason you want it is to have it in your nightstand drawer for home protection?? Most folks eventually wind up taking their weapon into the public domain, damn few weapons stay in that nightstand drawer permanently, only to be removed for periodic cleaning...

IOW, ANY gun might eventually become "public", rather than "private"... if nothing else, it might get STOLEN by someone who intends to use it in a very public manner...Similarly, how do we know that unregistered vehicles will only be used on private premises, or that an intoxicated person won't wonder out into public?

We don't violate people's rights to privacy on the possibility they might do something wrong.

[sbark]

House aims to shoot down federal gun controls


By KAHRIN DEINES • Associated Press Writer • February 14, 20http://greatfallstribune.com/gcicommonfiles/sr/graphics/common/icon_whatsthis.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(200,200,'/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=socialbookmarkshelp');)


HELENA — Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states' rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.

http://greatfallstribune.com/article/20090214/NEWS01/90214004




Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.