New US Gun Regulations
01-30-2009, 02:15 PM
#1
JK Freak
Thread Starter
New US Gun Regulations
Hey all,
I started a thread under "anything & everything" on HR 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.
It's a new bill that requires you to buy a gun license from the government (if you pass their criteria) in order to buy a new firearm.
It basically governs who can buy, sell and how you must store your firearms. The US House of Representatives website is www.house.gov
There is a link to search for bills, just type is HR 45.
Like I said on the other forum, guess it's time to call my rep.
I started a thread under "anything & everything" on HR 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.
It's a new bill that requires you to buy a gun license from the government (if you pass their criteria) in order to buy a new firearm.
It basically governs who can buy, sell and how you must store your firearms. The US House of Representatives website is www.house.gov
There is a link to search for bills, just type is HR 45.
Like I said on the other forum, guess it's time to call my rep.
01-31-2009, 06:40 AM
#3
JK Super Freak
I see this bill is up again. It was originally submitted back in 2007 by a congressman from Chicago, and I must admit, it's a sad story.
Remarks- Congressman Bobby L. Rush- Juneteenth/Blair’s Bill (June 19, 2007)
I have introduced HR 2666, Blair’s Bill, which would implement a federal gun licensing and registry program. This bill will help law enforcement track the over 200 million guns that are too often ending up in the hands of criminals, young people, and gang members.
This bill is supported by the people who live in fear in their homes and communities, scared that they will be the next victim of a stray bullet. I understand that this type of legislation is very controversial, not because it doesn’t make sense or because it is not needed. But because the powerful gun lobby will oppose it, and in doing so, intimidate many of my colleagues from supporting it.
However, those of us who live in communities where gun violence is a common occurrence understand the need for comprehensive gun control. We must be strong and stand up and do the right thing for our students, our families, and our communities. I urge all of my colleagues to support Blair’s Bill and send a message that we are fed up with domestic terrorism. Support HR 2666 and let’s get these guns off of our streets.
It stems from this story;
Blair Holt murder 5/10/07 Chicago, IL *The boy who became a hero with his murder.
When a lone gunman got on a CTA bus, and oppened fire on a group of teens Blair jumped on top of his classmate Tera Ried, saving her life while loosing his.
Yes we continue to see these stories every day, however I feel there are already enough gun laws on the books today. Both state and federal. It is the responsibility of our police forces to enforce these laws, and courts to prosecute these law breakers. While the police, I feel do a good job, the courts it seems have failed us. And so now again here comes someone that trys to make everyone believe we need more "gun laws". and on a federal level, thus taking away the rights of the states, and trying to whittle away at the second ammendment.
While some may agrue that the second ammendment, "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." , is dealing with a state military type force, such as the national guard, Let it be known that the "ninth ammendment, dictates that "the right of the people" are implicit rights.
So even if they do whittle away at the second, we still have the ninth.
Remarks- Congressman Bobby L. Rush- Juneteenth/Blair’s Bill (June 19, 2007)
I have introduced HR 2666, Blair’s Bill, which would implement a federal gun licensing and registry program. This bill will help law enforcement track the over 200 million guns that are too often ending up in the hands of criminals, young people, and gang members.
This bill is supported by the people who live in fear in their homes and communities, scared that they will be the next victim of a stray bullet. I understand that this type of legislation is very controversial, not because it doesn’t make sense or because it is not needed. But because the powerful gun lobby will oppose it, and in doing so, intimidate many of my colleagues from supporting it.
However, those of us who live in communities where gun violence is a common occurrence understand the need for comprehensive gun control. We must be strong and stand up and do the right thing for our students, our families, and our communities. I urge all of my colleagues to support Blair’s Bill and send a message that we are fed up with domestic terrorism. Support HR 2666 and let’s get these guns off of our streets.
It stems from this story;
Blair Holt murder 5/10/07 Chicago, IL *The boy who became a hero with his murder.
When a lone gunman got on a CTA bus, and oppened fire on a group of teens Blair jumped on top of his classmate Tera Ried, saving her life while loosing his.
Yes we continue to see these stories every day, however I feel there are already enough gun laws on the books today. Both state and federal. It is the responsibility of our police forces to enforce these laws, and courts to prosecute these law breakers. While the police, I feel do a good job, the courts it seems have failed us. And so now again here comes someone that trys to make everyone believe we need more "gun laws". and on a federal level, thus taking away the rights of the states, and trying to whittle away at the second ammendment.
While some may agrue that the second ammendment, "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." , is dealing with a state military type force, such as the national guard, Let it be known that the "ninth ammendment, dictates that "the right of the people" are implicit rights.
So even if they do whittle away at the second, we still have the ninth.
02-03-2009, 07:08 AM
#5
JK Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 2,710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
screw that.... here in GA... we still allow private sales. It wont stop me...
I belive that a truly free man lives his own life, by his own laws, but is willing to accept the consequences of violating the laws imposed by the society in which he is surrounded.
that being said... if i dont like the law... i dont adhere to it... if i get caught... i pay the consequence.
if they want me to get a permit to buy a gun... i wont.. the back alleys of Atlanta have a plethora or resources... much of which you cant buy in stores
just ask our rappers
I belive that a truly free man lives his own life, by his own laws, but is willing to accept the consequences of violating the laws imposed by the society in which he is surrounded.
that being said... if i dont like the law... i dont adhere to it... if i get caught... i pay the consequence.
if they want me to get a permit to buy a gun... i wont.. the back alleys of Atlanta have a plethora or resources... much of which you cant buy in stores
just ask our rappers
02-03-2009, 08:51 AM
#6
JK Super Freak
screw that.... here in GA... we still allow private sales. It wont stop me...
I belive that a truly free man lives his own life, by his own laws, but is willing to accept the consequences of violating the laws imposed by the society in which he is surrounded.
that being said... if i dont like the law... i dont adhere to it... if i get caught... i pay the consequence.
if they want me to get a permit to buy a gun... i wont.. the back alleys of Atlanta have a plethora or resources... much of which you cant buy in stores
just ask our rappers
I belive that a truly free man lives his own life, by his own laws, but is willing to accept the consequences of violating the laws imposed by the society in which he is surrounded.
that being said... if i dont like the law... i dont adhere to it... if i get caught... i pay the consequence.
if they want me to get a permit to buy a gun... i wont.. the back alleys of Atlanta have a plethora or resources... much of which you cant buy in stores
just ask our rappers
There's a case going on locally right now, where a man shot and killed another man. Although the state did not file homicide charges against him, because the investigation revealed it was self defense, he was charged with a gun violation, in that the gun he was carrying and used in his defense was not registered, and therefore illegal. In addition, he was carring the weapon concealed, and did not have a license to carry a firearm, as required by the state of Pa. For this crime he will most likely get one to two years.
I would never put myself in the position where the weapon I might have to someday use to protect my home, family or myself, is one that is somehow illegal. It would be bad enough having to use the weapon in defense, let alone to later find out you are now being prosecuted, not for using the weapon but rather for possesing it illegally.
02-03-2009, 09:16 AM
#7
JK Freak
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gulfport, MS
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a case going on locally right now, where a man shot and killed another man. Although the state did not file homicide charges against him, because the investigation revealed it was self defense, he was charged with a gun violation, in that the gun he was carrying and used in his defense was not registered, and therefore illegal. In addition, he was carring the weapon concealed, and did not have a license to carry a firearm, as required by the state of Pa. For this crime he will most likely get one to two years.
I would never put myself in the position where the weapon I might have to someday use to protect my home, family or myself, is one that is somehow illegal. It would be bad enough having to use the weapon in defense, let alone to later find out you are now being prosecuted, not for using the weapon but rather for possesing it illegally.
I would never put myself in the position where the weapon I might have to someday use to protect my home, family or myself, is one that is somehow illegal. It would be bad enough having to use the weapon in defense, let alone to later find out you are now being prosecuted, not for using the weapon but rather for possesing it illegally.
Trending Topics
02-03-2009, 10:00 AM
#8
JK Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 2,710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a case going on locally right now, where a man shot and killed another man. Although the state did not file homicide charges against him, because the investigation revealed it was self defense, he was charged with a gun violation, in that the gun he was carrying and used in his defense was not registered, and therefore illegal. In addition, he was carring the weapon concealed, and did not have a license to carry a firearm, as required by the state of Pa. For this crime he will most likely get one to two years.
I would never put myself in the position where the weapon I might have to someday use to protect my home, family or myself, is one that is somehow illegal. It would be bad enough having to use the weapon in defense, let alone to later find out you are now being prosecuted, not for using the weapon but rather for possesing it illegally.
I would never put myself in the position where the weapon I might have to someday use to protect my home, family or myself, is one that is somehow illegal. It would be bad enough having to use the weapon in defense, let alone to later find out you are now being prosecuted, not for using the weapon but rather for possesing it illegally.
there you have a truly free man... lived by his own laws... was caught breaking the laws of "reasonable gun control"
... and paid the penalty... yet he was judged by 12, not carried by 6.if he screwed up in the past and was not able to legally own a firearm... does that mean he is not entitled to defend himself? The State may think so... but he does not and neither do I... it all boils down to following laws imposed by your government or living your life the way you want to.
i choose the latter... and any penalties and/or jail time associated therein.
02-04-2009, 07:50 AM
#9
JK Super Freak
there you have a truly free man... lived by his own laws... was caught breaking the laws of "reasonable gun control" ... and paid the penalty... yet he was judged by 12, not carried by 6.
if he screwed up in the past and was not able to legally own a firearm... does that mean he is not entitled to defend himself? The State may think so... but he does not and neither do I... it all boils down to following laws imposed by your government or living your life the way you want to.
i choose the latter... and any penalties and/or jail time associated therein.
... and paid the penalty... yet he was judged by 12, not carried by 6.if he screwed up in the past and was not able to legally own a firearm... does that mean he is not entitled to defend himself? The State may think so... but he does not and neither do I... it all boils down to following laws imposed by your government or living your life the way you want to.
i choose the latter... and any penalties and/or jail time associated therein.
No. He is not a truly free man. Although he is out on bail he will have to go to court, and most likely spend some time in the county prison.
After he gets out he will most likely not be allowed to legally own a handgun, and if he can, will most likely not be able to get a permit to carry conceled.
As for screwing up in the past. I doubt he did, as I'm sure there would have been somthing to that effect in the investagation and current charges against him.
I can hear what you are saying, and perhaps would feel different had I been convected in the past of a crime that would limit my ability to own and carry a handun legally, however that is not the case. I feel that the laws we have today concerning guns are just, and would like to keep them like that.
I will admit that in certin instances the laws may seem unreasonable when it comes to guns, such as someone who in the past may have gotten a convection for something like smoking pot, and due to the time frame or amount, may have ended up with a felony convection, thereby not allowing that person to be granted a permit to carry today, however the laws I believe, are made for the good of the many, and not just the few. In a case like that, I as that person would petition the courts and try to have my past convection downgraded to less than an felony, and thereby allowing me a different status as far as handguns, and laws that govern them.
I agree that some may be in a quagmire for past convections, however they are most likely the few. And yes, it would suck to be one, however on the other hand, there are IMHO far to many illegal guns on the street, and easy to obtain, just as you yourself have stated, most of which are illegal, and many who are out there trying to obtain these weapons are in fact hardened criminals, or at least will be at some point in time.
The Harry Reid's and Nancy Poloci's are far too many now. Ammunition is what they want, so that they can begin to pick apart our second ammendment rights, and the more gun crimes that they can quote, the easier it becomes for them to establish a base to sway those who are today on the verge of the liberal meaning of gun control.
It is true that the second ammendment grants "we the people", freedom to have and bare arms, but in a larger sense, our Founding Fathers, ment this right to be granted to all the people, as a God given right. A right that is Implicit. However our Founding Fathers were also wise enough to see that the States should also have rights, and those rights should be governed by the people of those states through their elected officials of those states. And that the laws of those states should govern the people.
Without these laws is anarchy.
To get back to the point of my post. The laws of the state are just. If one breaks the law, one should be punished by the law of the state. And that is how it is today after 200+ years, and it has worked.
These laws of our states are just like our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and should not be dismissed. However when a person of a state commits a crime, and is convicted of that crime, that person should be punished by the state for that crime. In that case certin of his rights may be taken away, so that he may not harm others or take away their rights and God given freedom.
02-04-2009, 08:17 AM
#10
JK Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 2,710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to start a debate with you, however here in Pa, it's just too easy for a law abiding citizen to buy a handgun legally. Apply for a license to carry it conceled, and get that license.
No. He is not a truly free man. Although he is out on bail he will have to go to court, and most likely spend some time in the county prison.
After he gets out he will most likely not be allowed to legally own a handgun, and if he can, will most likely not be able to get a permit to carry conceled.
As for screwing up in the past. I doubt he did, as I'm sure there would have been somthing to that effect in the investagation and current charges against him.
I can hear what you are saying, and perhaps would feel different had I been convected in the past of a crime that would limit my ability to own and carry a handun legally, however that is not the case. I feel that the laws we have today concerning guns are just, and would like to keep them like that.
I will admit that in certin instances the laws may seem unreasonable when it comes to guns, such as someone who in the past may have gotten a convection for something like smoking pot, and due to the time frame or amount, may have ended up with a felony convection, thereby not allowing that person to be granted a permit to carry today, however the laws I believe, are made for the good of the many, and not just the few. In a case like that, I as that person would petition the courts and try to have my past convection downgraded to less than an felony, and thereby allowing me a different status as far as handguns, and laws that govern them.
I agree that some may be in a quagmire for past convections, however they are most likely the few. And yes, it would suck to be one, however on the other hand, there are IMHO far to many illegal guns on the street, and easy to obtain, just as you yourself have stated, most of which are illegal, and many who are out there trying to obtain these weapons are in fact hardened criminals, or at least will be at some point in time.
The Harry Reid's and Nancy Poloci's are far too many now. Ammunition is what they want, so that they can begin to pick apart our second ammendment rights, and the more gun crimes that they can quote, the easier it becomes for them to establish a base to sway those who are today on the verge of the liberal meaning of gun control.
It is true that the second ammendment grants "we the people", freedom to have and bare arms, but in a larger sense, our Founding Fathers, ment this right to be granted to all the people, as a God given right. A right that is Implicit. However our Founding Fathers were also wise enough to see that the States should also have rights, and those rights should be governed by the people of those states through their elected officials of those states. And that the laws of those states should govern the people.
Without these laws is anarchy.
To get back to the point of my post. The laws of the state are just. If one breaks the law, one should be punished by the law of the state. And that is how it is today after 200+ years, and it has worked.
These laws of our states are just like our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and should not be dismissed. However when a person of a state commits a crime, and is convicted of that crime, that person should be punished by the state for that crime. In that case certin of his rights may be taken away, so that he may not harm others or take away their rights and God given freedom.
No. He is not a truly free man. Although he is out on bail he will have to go to court, and most likely spend some time in the county prison.
After he gets out he will most likely not be allowed to legally own a handgun, and if he can, will most likely not be able to get a permit to carry conceled.
As for screwing up in the past. I doubt he did, as I'm sure there would have been somthing to that effect in the investagation and current charges against him.
I can hear what you are saying, and perhaps would feel different had I been convected in the past of a crime that would limit my ability to own and carry a handun legally, however that is not the case. I feel that the laws we have today concerning guns are just, and would like to keep them like that.
I will admit that in certin instances the laws may seem unreasonable when it comes to guns, such as someone who in the past may have gotten a convection for something like smoking pot, and due to the time frame or amount, may have ended up with a felony convection, thereby not allowing that person to be granted a permit to carry today, however the laws I believe, are made for the good of the many, and not just the few. In a case like that, I as that person would petition the courts and try to have my past convection downgraded to less than an felony, and thereby allowing me a different status as far as handguns, and laws that govern them.
I agree that some may be in a quagmire for past convections, however they are most likely the few. And yes, it would suck to be one, however on the other hand, there are IMHO far to many illegal guns on the street, and easy to obtain, just as you yourself have stated, most of which are illegal, and many who are out there trying to obtain these weapons are in fact hardened criminals, or at least will be at some point in time.
The Harry Reid's and Nancy Poloci's are far too many now. Ammunition is what they want, so that they can begin to pick apart our second ammendment rights, and the more gun crimes that they can quote, the easier it becomes for them to establish a base to sway those who are today on the verge of the liberal meaning of gun control.
It is true that the second ammendment grants "we the people", freedom to have and bare arms, but in a larger sense, our Founding Fathers, ment this right to be granted to all the people, as a God given right. A right that is Implicit. However our Founding Fathers were also wise enough to see that the States should also have rights, and those rights should be governed by the people of those states through their elected officials of those states. And that the laws of those states should govern the people.
Without these laws is anarchy.
To get back to the point of my post. The laws of the state are just. If one breaks the law, one should be punished by the law of the state. And that is how it is today after 200+ years, and it has worked.
These laws of our states are just like our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and should not be dismissed. However when a person of a state commits a crime, and is convicted of that crime, that person should be punished by the state for that crime. In that case certin of his rights may be taken away, so that he may not harm others or take away their rights and God given freedom.
with me... they can have "all" my weapons...
... at least all the ones on paper. God Bless Georgia and private sales!