HR 45 -- Gun Rights Licensing Test

right winger · January 22, 2009, 10:33 AM

I got this from Gun Laws.com

Here come the gun grabbers. It is time to take action.

Call,Write and email your Represenative in the U.S.House.

With Eric Holder as Attorney General gun owners are in trouble.

Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, from Obama's home state and with a voting record on gun ownership as bad as Obama's, introduced a bill on the first day of the 111th Congress that shows what we can expect.

If we don't defeat this bill, and others expected to follow it, gun owners will lose guns and the industry will suffer harm beyond description.

Under HR 45, if you can't pass a complex test written by the U.S. Attorney General (described in detail below), pay the tax, give up fingerprints and a biometric-capable photo of yourself (that can be turned into a digital facial-recognition number and used as a de facto national ID), every gun you own will become contraband and subject to confiscation, while you stand trial before imprisonment.

You'd think Bobby, a former black panther, would know better.
Your rights will have an expiration date, and if you screw up and miss it, you'll be in the same mess as people who can't pass the test. Can you say "unconstitutional"? Do you think these "gun bigots" care?

Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Heller case that government can't ban guns, the Brady's have stopped saying they want to ban guns.

So the virtually treasonous Bobby Rush bill doesn't ban guns, it bans gun owners, maybe by the millions.

How many gun owners read poorly or don't test well?

How many can't explain local, state and federal gun laws?

They'd become prohibited possessors under HR 45. Are there any limits to what the AG can put on the test?

The bill doesn't mention any -- it gives the AG a free hand to include anything.

Had enough? HR 45 has an innocent-looking line that says 'strike the second sentence of 18 USC 926(a)'. That's the line that says the federal government cannot make a central registry of gun owners.

The anti-rights people have to repeal that line, because Bobby's bill flat-out creates a central gun registry. Every gun owner must be registered to keep on possessing the guns they already own, and any transfer of any kind must be registered as well. The mark of the beast is upon us, to apply a metaphor.

See the bill for yourself (click "Bill Number" and enter "HR 45"):http://thomas.loc.gov/

Read the gun-ban list the antis have already published:http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm

Get a book on how you can be more effectively politically:http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm

Al Norris · January 22, 2009, 11:25 AM

After renaming and editing the (now) Watchlist thread, this Thread is now on topic for discussion.

Webleymkv · January 22, 2009, 08:09 PM

While it's certainly something to pay attention to, I don't think I'll go into full on panic mode until more action than being referred to committee takes place. Chances are, the bill will die in committee.

**44 AMP** · January 22, 2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

HR 45 has an innocent-looking line that says 'strike the second sentence of 18 USC 926(a)'.

Not this sentence, but this tactic. What we should do in addition to all that we already do to defend and try to restore lost rights is to adopt this kind of tactic.

Have one (or more) of our supporters in Congress (and there actually are a few) insert a line similar to this in every major "must pass" type of legislation. It is possible that by simply adding a small possibly unnoticed "editorial" change line we could neuter or even repeal some of the most onerous portions of gun control laws.

Quietly, without fanfare, without open discussion (just as they constantly try to do to us), simply add in the change, and let them spend the time energy and money to find and oppose them.

With major bills containing thousands of lines of text, and often being rushed into voting before all the provisions are clearly understood, or sometimes even read, I think we stand a fair chance of getting some things through. And even if we don't get them through, we are forceing the other side to react, instead of just acting.

Another plus is that this tactic stands a fair chance of slipping under the media radar, depriving them of the ability to provoke an emotional frenzy, against which even our supporters have a hard time resisting.

What do we have to lose?

mikejonestkd · January 22, 2009, 09:49 PM

Disturbing bit of legistlation...wow is about all I can say!!!!

email to my Rep sent...

red700 · January 22, 2009, 10:44 PM

Just sent this note to my rep. here in Mn. on the 45.

This new gov. can do anything now!

Mr Phil · February 2, 2009, 08:11 PM

Here is the section that says all semi autos will be banned

is amended by adding at the end the following:
15 ‘‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’—
16 ‘‘(A) means—
17 ‘‘(i) any handgun; or
18 ‘‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that
19 can accept any detachable ammunition
20 feeding device; and

Zhillsauditor · February 2, 2009, 08:14 PM

It is written by Bobby Rush without any co-sponsers, was referred to committee and will die there without ever moving forward or probably even being spoken about. I wouldn't doubt that ex-black panther Bobby Rush has introduced this bill at the beginning of every legislative session.

gc70 · February 2, 2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't doubt that ex-black panther Bobby Rush has introduced this bill at the beginning of every legislative session.

No, the bill was first introduced in the 110th Congress as H.R. 2666 and died in committee.

vranasaurus · February 2, 2009, 11:53 PM

In light of Heller, wouldn't there be a good argument that this violates everyones second amendment right.

This is akin to literacy test and poll taxes for voting. You should never have to pay a specific tax or pass a test to exercise a right.

If we have literacy tests for guns we should have the same for voting. I'm just as afraid of a bunch of idiots voting as owning guns.

What gets me is that many who support this type of legislation oppose having to show identification when voting. If we don't have to show ID when voting why should we have to show ID when buying a gun?

Mr Phil · February 3, 2009, 09:49 AM

Well said - the dems oppose an national ID card and having to show any id when you vote they do not even want to have a registry of sex offenders - but they belive gun owners need to be tracked.

Call me paranoid but I worked a outside consultant to the government for two years – as much as I could stand the registery of gun owners would be misused. Guarantee gun owners would be moved to the top of the IRS audit list for example.

bikerbill · February 6, 2009, 10:06 AM

Just read the details of HR45 ... good grief! does this monstrosity have a chance of passage? what's being done to stop it?

crstrode · February 6, 2009, 11:24 AM

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

Essentially it says you must have a Federal license with your photograph and fingerprint to possess or sell a gun.

Note it says "possess". If you don't have a federal license and a friend loans you his gun to try out for a day or so, you become a felon and will be thrown in prison.

If you keep a loaned gun for more than 30 days and either you or the gun owner do not change the registration, you both become felons and will be thrown in prison.

You cannot sell or transfer a gun to anyone other than a federally licensed dealer. If you do so, you become a felon and will be thrown in prison.

The law applies to any and all firearms you have now or will ever have. All firearms must be individually registered. If you don't register all the firearms you currently possess, you will become felon and will be thrown in prison.

If you change your address and do not make the proper notifications you will become a felon and be thrown in prison.

If a person under the age of 18 has any possibility of gaining access to a gun in your home, you become a felon and will be thrown in prison.

Here is a link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

405boy · February 6, 2009, 12:46 PM

We should all hope and pray this dies in committee as it did before, but remember, it was under a different regime then. I see bad days ahead if this passes. Lets band together and march in 2010.

**Tom Servo** · February 6, 2009, 01:11 PM

As has been mentioned, this bill has no co-sponsors, and a previous version died quickly. It's just like McCarthy's annual attempt at renewing the Assault Weapons Ban.

Look at Rep. Rush's history. Like most liberals, he fears nothing more than appearing irrelevant. HR 45 explicitly tries to stick a DC-style licensing scheme on weapons that were clearly protected in the Heller decision. It doesn't stand a chance.

Worry more about sneaky back-door regulatory stuff like OSHA's 1910.109 proposal (which also died quietly).

crstrode · February 6, 2009, 01:35 PM

Be careful folks.

There is a new administration with lots of new liberals.

The Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi from California - a rabid supporter of the Brady Bill.

Even if it is likely that HR-45 would be overturned by the Supreme Court (no guarantees here either), the Congress could pass this bill into law and it would take the Supreme Court several years to issue a ruling and overturn it.

The Washington DC gun ban was decided by a single vote.

In the meantime, most of us would be felons, and a whole lot of our guns would be melted down into scrap.

Of course, if you folks are confident this cannot ever happen, just ignore this and have another beer.

Al Norris · February 6, 2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crstrode

Of course, if you folks are confident this cannot ever happen, just ignore this and have another beer.

Despite the sarcasm (or perhaps, because of it), there is a stickied thread at the top of the Forum. It's sole purpose is for members to post bills from the US Congress that may affect the 2A. It's called a "Watch-List" for a reason.

When and/or if a bill starts to get traction, we all hope someone posts an update for that particular bill.

However, if the bill is just sitting in committee, with no sponsors, going nowhere fast, just what do you think we should do? Get all lathered up, frothing at the mouth over something that that isn't happening?

Yeah, we would look real credible there, I'd bet.

Your sarcasm is misplaced and not wanted. Get the facts first.

405boy · February 7, 2009, 07:20 PM

Tom, good catch and read, very interesting and as you said, very sneaky.

**Tom Servo** · February 7, 2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Get all lathered up, frothing at the mouth over something that that isn't happening?

Apparently, that's par for the course lately. Neil Boortz threw a tizzy about it on the air yesterday morning, and people went into apoplexy. Seriously. I came home to emails with titles like, "END OF THE SECIND AMINMENT OMG," and they'd taken the time to cut and paste every single gun-related thing they could find on Google.

Where were all these people two years ago, when we lost both houses of Congress?

The internet is a powerful tool, and we're all much more connected that we were in 1993 (for better or worse). The nice thing about last year's OSHA shenanigans was that the whole shebang was spotted quickly, widely disseminated overnight, and the NRA was able to act on it quickly.

The proposal was scotched, and OSHA fell over backwards "explaining" that it was an innocent semantic mistake.

It'll be really difficult to pull the Sarah Brady Brand Wool® over people's eyes this time around.

Waitone · February 7, 2009, 09:47 PM

I just don't see the bill making any headway when the power structure knows the fight will distract from more "important" issues like socializing the banking or healthcare system.

Heller opened the door on regulation out the ying yang of firearms. I think the recently passed SCHIPS bill provides a clue. Tax healthcare badguys (tobacco users) to support healthcare good guys (chilrin and illegal immigrants). Dragged into the second amendment wars I can see legislation passed which would tax out the ying yang healthcare badguys (people who use guns; legal or illegal is irrelevant) to support healthcare goodguys (gun violence victims in ER's). I look forward to legislative attempts to tax the everloving daylights out of guns and ammo.

**Tom Servo** · February 14, 2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

I just don't see the bill making any headway when the power structure knows the fight will distract from more "important" issues like socializing the banking or healthcare system.

Absolutely right. If the economy was good and we weren't fighting a war on two fronts, I'd be more worried.

(Well, I AM worried, but not about gun laws.)

Plain fact is, Joe Smith lost his job, and he might lose his house. He doesn't want to see the government wasting time and money on gun control.

Besides, it's hard for the Left to push a bill they know is likely to get tied up in the courts getting weighed against Heller. Worst of all, such a battle could end up setting pro-gun precedents. Can't have that.

405boy · February 14, 2009, 10:32 PM

Good comments Tom, I agree.

Mr Phil · February 15, 2009, 02:16 PM

I believe the issue (and danger) is just like the compensation limits issue we saw get slipped into the stimulus bill ... This will likely get slipped in as part of conference process. I am a tax guy and I have seen this tactic used for years to get things put into law that the IRS wanted.

They are smart enough to know that having a debate about this will not work - just easier to get forgiveness than approval. Why should they make a frontal attack when they can come in the back door.

Am I paranoid … maybe … but I have seen 30 years of manipulation of the tax code this way.

Think there is a danger being too comfortable here.

daywalker627 · February 19, 2009, 05:49 PM

I was talking to an individual today about this particular bill. I read through the thread here and I may have missed this if anyone had mentioned it and I appologize if I repeat anything however, he was telling me that under this act, as everyone here is saying, is that a person will be required to obtain a federal liscense to own a gun. He was telling me, and Please, Please if anyone knows different, or if this is fact let me know. He was telling me that to obtain a federal liscense also falls under the patriot act. He also added that under the patriot act, I believe, if you have a criminal record that you can not obtain a liscense. He was telling me that a simple speeding ticket is concidered a criminal offense and would prevent a person from obtaining the liscense. Is this really factual? I am going to attempt to look this up.

vranasaurus · February 19, 2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

I was talking to an individual today about this particular bill. I read through the thread here and I may have missed this if anyone had mentioned it and I appologize if I repeat anything however, he was telling me that under this act, as everyone here is saying, is that a person will be required to obtain a federal liscense to own a gun. He was telling me, and Please, Please if anyone knows different, or if this is fact let me know. He was telling me that to obtain a federal liscense also falls under the patriot act. He also added that under the patriot act, I believe, if you have a criminal record that you can not obtain a liscense. He was telling me that a simple speeding ticket is concidered a criminal offense and would prevent a person from obtaining the liscense. Is this really factual? I am going to attempt to look this up.

I don't know about any federal licenses falling under the patriot act. Sounds to me like somebody trying to spread some conspiracy theory.

January 22, 2009, 10:33 AM	#1
right winger Member Join Date: June 8, 2008 Location: Hymera,Indiana Posts: 27	HR 45 -- Gun Rights Licensing Test I got this from Gun Laws.com Here come the gun grabbers. It is time to take action. Call,Write and email your Represenative in the U.S.House. With Eric Holder as Attorney General gun owners are in trouble. Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, from Obama's home state and with a voting record on gun ownership as bad as Obama's, introduced a bill on the first day of the 111th Congress that shows what we can expect. If we don't defeat this bill, and others expected to follow it, gun owners will lose guns and the industry will suffer harm beyond description. Under HR 45, if you can't pass a complex test written by the U.S. Attorney General (described in detail below), pay the tax, give up fingerprints and a biometric-capable photo of yourself (that can be turned into a digital facial-recognition number and used as a de facto national ID), every gun you own will become contraband and subject to confiscation, while you stand trial before imprisonment. You'd think Bobby, a former black panther, would know better. Your rights will have an expiration date, and if you screw up and miss it, you'll be in the same mess as people who can't pass the test. Can you say "unconstitutional"? Do you think these "gun bigots" care? Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Heller case that government can't ban guns, the Brady's have stopped saying they want to ban guns. So the virtually treasonous Bobby Rush bill doesn't ban guns, it bans gun owners, maybe by the millions. How many gun owners read poorly or don't test well? How many can't explain local, state and federal gun laws? They'd become prohibited possessors under HR 45. Are there any limits to what the AG can put on the test? The bill doesn't mention any -- it gives the AG a free hand to include anything. Had enough? HR 45 has an innocent-looking line that says 'strike the second sentence of 18 USC 926(a)'. That's the line that says the federal government cannot make a central registry of gun owners. The anti-rights people have to repeal that line, because Bobby's bill flat-out creates a central gun registry. Every gun owner must be registered to keep on possessing the guns they already own, and any transfer of any kind must be registered as well. The mark of the beast is upon us, to apply a metaphor. See the bill for yourself (click "Bill Number" and enter "HR 45"):http://thomas.loc.gov/ Read the gun-ban list the antis have already published:http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm Get a book on how you can be more effectively politically:http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm __________________ A armed man is a citizen. A unarmed man is a subject.

January 22, 2009, 11:25 AM	#2
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	After renaming and editing the (now) Watchlist thread, this Thread is now on topic for discussion. Last edited by Al Norris; January 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM. Reason: Reopened After Editing Watchlist

January 22, 2009, 09:49 PM	#5
mikejonestkd Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2006 Location: Brockport, NY Posts: 3,717	Disturbing bit of legistlation...wow is about all I can say!!!! email to my Rep sent... __________________ You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

February 2, 2009, 08:11 PM	#7
Mr Phil Member Join Date: January 23, 2009 Posts: 43	Here is the section that says all semi autos will be banned is amended by adding at the end the following: 15 ‘‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’— 16 ‘‘(A) means— 17 ‘‘(i) any handgun; or 18 ‘‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that 19 can accept any detachable ammunition 20 feeding device; and __________________ Don't bother running away ... you'll only die tired.

February 3, 2009, 09:49 AM	#11
Mr Phil Member Join Date: January 23, 2009 Posts: 43	Well said - the dems oppose an national ID card and having to show any id when you vote they do not even want to have a registry of sex offenders - but they belive gun owners need to be tracked. Call me paranoid but I worked a outside consultant to the government for two years – as much as I could stand the registery of gun owners would be misused. Guarantee gun owners would be moved to the top of the IRS audit list for example. __________________ Don't bother running away ... you'll only die tired.

January 22, 2009, 08:09 PM	#3
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	While it's certainly something to pay attention to, I don't think I'll go into full on panic mode until more action than being referred to committee takes place. Chances are, the bill will die in committee.

January 22, 2009, 10:44 PM	#6
red700 Junior Member Join Date: December 6, 2008 Location: Lake City, Mn. Posts: 5	Just sent this note to my rep. here in Mn. on the 45. This new gov. can do anything now!

February 2, 2009, 08:14 PM	#8
Zhillsauditor Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2008 Posts: 635	It is written by Bobby Rush without any co-sponsers, was referred to committee and will die there without ever moving forward or probably even being spoken about. I wouldn't doubt that ex-black panther Bobby Rush has introduced this bill at the beginning of every legislative session.

February 2, 2009, 11:53 PM	#10
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	In light of Heller, wouldn't there be a good argument that this violates everyones second amendment right. This is akin to literacy test and poll taxes for voting. You should never have to pay a specific tax or pass a test to exercise a right. If we have literacy tests for guns we should have the same for voting. I'm just as afraid of a bunch of idiots voting as owning guns. What gets me is that many who support this type of legislation oppose having to show identification when voting. If we don't have to show ID when voting why should we have to show ID when buying a gun?

February 6, 2009, 10:06 AM	#12
bikerbill Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2007 Location: Lago Vista TX Posts: 2,425	Just read the details of HR45 ... good grief! does this monstrosity have a chance of passage? what's being done to stop it? __________________ "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

February 6, 2009, 11:24 AM	#13
crstrode Member Join Date: August 13, 2008 Posts: 41	Got a gun? Go to jail! Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. Essentially it says you must have a Federal license with your photograph and fingerprint to possess or sell a gun. Note it says "possess". If you don't have a federal license and a friend loans you his gun to try out for a day or so, you become a felon and will be thrown in prison. If you keep a loaned gun for more than 30 days and either you or the gun owner do not change the registration, you both become felons and will be thrown in prison. You cannot sell or transfer a gun to anyone other than a federally licensed dealer. If you do so, you become a felon and will be thrown in prison. The law applies to any and all firearms you have now or will ever have. All firearms must be individually registered. If you don't register all the firearms you currently possess, you will become felon and will be thrown in prison. If you change your address and do not make the proper notifications you will become a felon and be thrown in prison. If a person under the age of 18 has any possibility of gaining access to a gun in your home, you become a felon and will be thrown in prison. Here is a link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

February 6, 2009, 12:46 PM	#14
405boy Member Join Date: January 8, 2009 Posts: 48	We should all hope and pray this dies in committee as it did before, but remember, it was under a different regime then. I see bad days ahead if this passes. Lets band together and march in 2010.

February 6, 2009, 01:11 PM	#15
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	As has been mentioned, this bill has no co-sponsors, and a previous version died quickly. It's just like McCarthy's annual attempt at renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Look at Rep. Rush's history. Like most liberals, he fears nothing more than appearing irrelevant. HR 45 explicitly tries to stick a DC-style licensing scheme on weapons that were clearly protected in the Heller decision. It doesn't stand a chance. Worry more about sneaky back-door regulatory stuff like OSHA's 1910.109 proposal (which also died quietly). __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 6, 2009, 01:35 PM	#16
crstrode Member Join Date: August 13, 2008 Posts: 41	HR 45: Don't be complacent Be careful folks. There is a new administration with lots of new liberals. The Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi from California - a rabid supporter of the Brady Bill. Even if it is likely that HR-45 would be overturned by the Supreme Court (no guarantees here either), the Congress could pass this bill into law and it would take the Supreme Court several years to issue a ruling and overturn it. The Washington DC gun ban was decided by a single vote. In the meantime, most of us would be felons, and a whole lot of our guns would be melted down into scrap. Of course, if you folks are confident this cannot ever happen, just ignore this and have another beer.

February 7, 2009, 07:20 PM	#18
405boy Member Join Date: January 8, 2009 Posts: 48	Tom, good read Tom, good catch and read, very interesting and as you said, very sneaky.

February 7, 2009, 09:47 PM	#20
Waitone Senior Member Join Date: March 19, 2000 Posts: 2,904	I just don't see the bill making any headway when the power structure knows the fight will distract from more "important" issues like socializing the banking or healthcare system. Heller opened the door on regulation out the ying yang of firearms. I think the recently passed SCHIPS bill provides a clue. Tax healthcare badguys (tobacco users) to support healthcare good guys (chilrin and illegal immigrants). Dragged into the second amendment wars I can see legislation passed which would tax out the ying yang healthcare badguys (people who use guns; legal or illegal is irrelevant) to support healthcare goodguys (gun violence victims in ER's). I look forward to legislative attempts to tax the everloving daylights out of guns and ammo. __________________ "Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.

February 14, 2009, 10:32 PM	#22
405boy Member Join Date: January 8, 2009 Posts: 48	Good comments Good comments Tom, I agree.

February 15, 2009, 02:16 PM	#23
Mr Phil Member Join Date: January 23, 2009 Posts: 43	I believe the issue (and danger) is just like the compensation limits issue we saw get slipped into the stimulus bill ... This will likely get slipped in as part of conference process. I am a tax guy and I have seen this tactic used for years to get things put into law that the IRS wanted. They are smart enough to know that having a debate about this will not work - just easier to get forgiveness than approval. Why should they make a frontal attack when they can come in the back door. Am I paranoid … maybe … but I have seen 30 years of manipulation of the tax code this way. Think there is a danger being too comfortable here. __________________ Don't bother running away ... you'll only die tired.

February 19, 2009, 05:49 PM	#24
daywalker627 Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2008 Location: Dublin VA Posts: 105	I was talking to an individual today about this particular bill. I read through the thread here and I may have missed this if anyone had mentioned it and I appologize if I repeat anything however, he was telling me that under this act, as everyone here is saying, is that a person will be required to obtain a federal liscense to own a gun. He was telling me, and Please, Please if anyone knows different, or if this is fact let me know. He was telling me that to obtain a federal liscense also falls under the patriot act. He also added that under the patriot act, I believe, if you have a criminal record that you can not obtain a liscense. He was telling me that a simple speeding ticket is concidered a criminal offense and would prevent a person from obtaining the liscense. Is this really factual? I am going to attempt to look this up.