Bill To Require National Firearm Registry HR 45 January 6, 2009

[Fishbulb]

Does it have legs??

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

[baltz526]

it is completely opposite of the founders of this country intent of gun ownership. if it is put into law. this will no longer be the united states of america.

[duckboy]

I submit my copious frothing amounts of BARF
upon the author (s) of this great bill.

Guess who the # 1 proponent of gun restriction is?
The President of the USA and The Speaker of the house...

YOUR HOUSE!

[Quaka Wacka]

I said it a few times already, but a few ifishers assured me there would be no new gun control laws. That there are much more important issues for the law makers to worry about. So there is no possible way any of this could pass.... Right?

[Smoked Salmon]

I couldn't get that link to work. What did I miss?

[BrianMaguire]

Oh boy, another sky is falling alarm bell to stir up the hive, this house resolution makes all semi autos and handguns illegal to own for the average joe. Not only will it never see a floor vote (much less pass) it can't pass the courts. Calm down and think rationally.

[baltz526]

i read it, it is much more than a simple ban bill. if passed and the president signs it, legal challenges will be going on for years. further dividing all of us.

[baltz526]

here is the library of congress link http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45.IH:

[James in Idaho]

The main sponsor is Bobby Rush of Illinois. He has always introduced these types of bills, rabid anti-gunner. I think gun owners will face major challanges in the next four years, we have a very anti gun administration in power (Prez, chief of staff, attorney general, senate majority leader, speaker of the house), and Congress has always managed to "fiddle while Rome burns".

[Smoked Salmon]

Folks, please try to steer clear of painting with such a broad brush. We feel a little uncomfortable about the flammability of this issue, especially given the snowballs chance of it coming to anything. Until we lose our democracy, elected officials represent the will of the people (to clarify, the people deliberately elected politicians with these ... leanings and as such it is the will of the people, and that is my personal opinion), and if the people of Chicago wish to elect "anti-gunner" representatives, then that is their right, and I'll defend it. Our Constitution protects us all from the will of a few, as it should be. Some partisan political comments have been removed from this thread.

Thanks,
ifish staff.

[CombinationLicense]

This makes the 4th thread on this issue now

Gun Ban Legislation...

New - HR 45 Federal Gun Bill

New Gun Licensing Bill

While I agree with many of the comments concerning the sanity of our elected officials, complaining about it on IFISH won't help. Making your voice heard in Washington might help though and you can do it pretty easily by visiting this web site:

Oppose HR 45 - Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act


"CL"

[Quaka Wacka]

Thanks for the link CL

[97seahawk]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...45&tab=summary

[merrile]

wow, are they going to check our firearm insurance cards at SI before our morning hunts.

Originally Posted by 97seahawk

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...45&tab=summary

[Smoked Salmon]

After reading the summary, it seems the only practical change is that you now need to have to carry proof that you are eligible to own a firearm.

I would think that would be an attraction, as a private party seller would know that the person with whom they are dealing is not a felon.

All the rest is, in some form or another, already law.

[lingslayer]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

After reading the summary, it seems the only practical change is that you now need to have to carry proof that you are eligible to own a firearm.
I would think that would be an attraction, as a private party seller would know that the person with whom they are dealing is not a felon.

We already have a system that can do that for us without a blanket policy to register every gun and gun owner in the U.S.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand?
Remain vigilant, do not be lulled into apathy by those that continually tell you that you have nothing to worry about.
They can't take them all away if they don't know who has them. Paranoid?
Maybe so.
But we have all ended up at the bottom of a slippery slope at one time or another!

[rimrock]

Originally Posted by lingslayer

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand?

What's the legal definiation of that phrase? NO, not your definination, not mine either but the one the courts have support for decades.

[Rank Amateur]

I like this definition.
in·fringe v
1. vt to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2. vti to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

[rimrock]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

I like this definition.
in·fringe v
1. vt to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2. vti to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Looking for the legal def, not the Dictionary Ya know why can't I own a rocket launcher.

[Quaka Wacka]

Originally Posted by rimrock

Looking for the legal def, not the Dictionary

You are loooking for something that is not clearly defined and often open to interpritation by the supreme court. It 23 years to realize that the DC gun restrictions, were "infringing".

(And this one always cracks me up....)

Originally Posted by rimrock

Ya know why can't I own a rocket launcher.

The reason you cant own a rocket launcher is it is, and has always been deemed for military use only and is not considered small arms.

[rimrock]

Originally Posted by Quaka Wacka

You are loooking for something that is not clearly defined and often open to interpritation by the supreme court. It 23 years to realize that the DC gun restrictions, were "infringing".

I agree 100%. And my point too is anyone's individual opinion of infringment may not be the one of Law. And we see in Law, the Government, has the right to "infringe". Be it waiting periods, automatic weapons, rounds in a mag, concealed carry laws...just in these examples individuals could and do say they are being infringed upon. Which is opinion and they are welcome to it. But is is just opinion, the truth is the Governement can infringe per se, to what degree is not clearly defined and often open to interp and I again agree that is spot on.

What "shall not be infringed" means...it's not a personal opinion but a process of the courts. Certainly not a perfect system but the system of the USA is a good one nevertheless.

[billc_sbio]

The "shall not be infringed" stance has sadly changed over time.

Back in 1934 when EVERYTHING was Legal , Federal Legislators realized this and didn't want to face a Supreme Court challenge that they were nearly certain they would lose. (Due mainly to the general public's attitude at that time towards gun ownership)

However they cleverly figured they could impose a heavy Tax (requiring registration of the designated "Taxed" firearms) on certain firearms they wished to deem "Highly Restricted", and that's how the 1934 National Firearms Act got enacted.

This, of course, is the registration on Machineguns, Silencers, Sawed Off Shotguns, Short Barrelled Rifles and Pistols with Shoulder Stocks. (It also includes several other categories of firearms, including Short Barrelled Shotguns originally manufactured WITHOUT Shoulder Stocks, listed as "Any Other Weapons", a seperate class unto themselves)

Other firearms, later described as "Destructive Devices" (which includes modern firearms larger than .50 caliber) didn't come into being until the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Before that, you could buy Mortars and .55 Cal. Boy's Anti-Tank Rifles for cheaps (and I remember the ads in magazines; how about a 82mm Russian Mortar for $19.00?!! )

Of course in today's liberal climate, "shall not be infringed" might be viewed differently.

[Smoked Salmon]

The right to bear arms was infringed when society deemed it necessary to prohibit felons from owning firearms. Was that a mistake? Should we allow people who have served a sentence for murder 1 to be able to go out and buy a handgun? All this Bill seems to address is the identity of gun owners so as to ascertain that they meet the legal requirements. Therefore, this is not a change in the right to bear arms, however infringed you believe it to be.

[Oregon-Jet]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

After reading the summary, it seems the only practical change is that you now need to have to carry proof that you are eligible to own a firearm.

I would think that would be an attraction, as a private party seller would know that the person with whom they are dealing is not a felon.

All the rest is, in some form or another, already law.

Amazing thought process.

[lingslayer]

Wow, there are actually people in/on a hunting forum that think national gun registration is a good thing.
Something tells me not every participant here is a gun owner!

[Rank Amateur]

Smoked Salmon owns guns, I've seen them, but I suspect he has some German in his ancestory. I'm grinning Bill!

Hitler thought gun registration was a good thing too. The Government does NOT need to know how many arms I have, since I'm a law abiding citizen.

What good could come from this??

[BrianMaguire]

With how well the government keeps track of our most honored, our vets, I can think of a ton of big what ifs on this and so can half the legislators, then the courts, it infringes and has no legs, IMO.

BTW - I read at least part of the bill and it passes the buck to the states for the registration, this is a sure fire way to die before ever being born. Which member of congress wants to come home supporting that, even if the state is all of the same party, with the budgets today, there will be hell to pay @ home. DOA!

[rimrock]

Yes, it's soooooooo DOA to the point it's almost funny to get so worked up. But if I was an organization looking for money...well it's a good fundraiser ya know.

Nope, it's not a good bill and nope it won't become Law.

Lets see do I still have guns (yep). And wow I'm still am not in 1930's Germany either. One would think the NRA would get tired of playing the Nazz card.

[Rank Amateur]

Just trying not to repeat history Rimrock, you know the saying...

[rimrock]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Just trying not to repeat history Rimrock, you know the saying...

....are doomed to repeat it! But heck the Germans have great beer too so there's that for an upside.

EDIT:

Let’s not forget the bill hasn’t been able to gain even one….not even one single co-sponsor in the entire House. Wow, that doesn’t bode well for any bill, eh? Since it can’t gain one ounce of support, it will die in subcommittee never reaching the floor.

Man, it’s gonna be difficult to shoot them chukar without a gun…ya know since I don’t own one. I’ll just speak harshly to them.

[lucky2]

Originally Posted by Quaka Wacka

You are loooking for something that is not clearly defined and often open to interpritation by the supreme court. It 23 years to realize that the DC gun restrictions, were "infringing".

(And this one always cracks me up....)


The reason you cant own a rocket launcher is it is, and has always been deemed for military use only and is not considered small arms.

I thought rocket launchers were for holding my fishing poles

[Quaka Wacka]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

The right to bear arms was infringed when society deemed it necessary to prohibit felons from owning firearms. Was that a mistake? Should we allow people who have served a sentence for murder 1 to be able to go out and buy a handgun? All this Bill seems to address is the identity of gun owners so as to ascertain that they meet the legal requirements. Therefore, this is not a change in the right to bear arms, however infringed you believe it to be.

Not really an accurate comparrison. You aren't infringing on a felons rights, because once you are convicted of a felony you lose several rights. If I'm not mistaken, felons can't vote either.

I agree that this bill stands little or no chance of passing, but if it did I doubt the states DOL would hesitate to turn it in to a revenue generating oppertunity. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Especially with our states current financial situation.

[crabbait]

People, politicians are politicians. One of the first things they learn is to never start a fight they can't win. It is very clear that there are enough gun packing Democrats to ensure that this bill or any other similar bill is dead as a hammer on arrival.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be ever vigilant but even the most virulent gun control advocates are realizing that the horse is out of the barn. No one has the foggiest notion how many guns there are in the USA and nobody is every going to know. My own collection includes a pump shotgun manufactured in 1903 that functions perfectly, a .30-30 that is older than my father and functions just like it did on day one and a 1943 M1911 made by Remington that still tosses hardballs just fine. As far as I know, none of them has been through the hands of a dealer in four generations.

How many more are out there? The only way anyone is ever going to know is the hard way and nobody will allow that. Stay legal, well informed and not worried. JMHO.

(I pity the foo' who launches a ground attack on US soil. Too many of us have more guns than we can carry in a wheelbarrow with two trips and enough ammo to defend the Alamo single-handed.)

[Quaka Wacka]

Originally Posted by crabbait

(I pity the foo' who launches a ground attack on US soil. Too many of us have more guns than we can carry in a wheelbarrow with two trips and enough ammo to defend the Alamo single-handed.)

Funny and very true