H.R. 45 – Blows Up Right to Protect Ones Self

August 14, 2009 by  
Filed under Opinion

Several months ago, we briefly mentioned some concerns with the Blair Holt Firearms Licensing Act of 2009, H.R. 45.

After learning that our Congressman is not reading bills, I decided we would take another look at H.R. 45 and see how much trouble it proposes.

The new firearms act requires the creation of a national database to store each gun owners registration information (Sec. 501.A.1).  Where else are they going to store the following information about every gun owner in America.  Below you will find the application requirements to obtain a hand gun under this proposal, along with a $25 fee every five (5) years per section 102 of H.R. 45.

  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–
    1. the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
    2. the safe handling of firearms;
    3. the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
    4. 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
    5. 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.

Further evidence for the potential of a national ID card is found in section 103, which calls for a “tamper-resistant card.”  Granted the card mentioned in section 103 claims that the top portion of the license would read ‘FIREARM LICENSE–NOT VALID FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE’ but I think we can safely assume that the Congress could easily drop a line into a bill that would override this provision without the public knowing.

And the text in Section 305 of H.R. 45 appears to prohibit the use of any firearm by a “child” (anyone under the age of 18) and prohibits the individuals freedom to protect his property if a child lives on the premises.

  • 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–
    • that person–
      • knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child is capable of gaining access to the firearm; and
      • either–
        • 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
        • knows, or reasonably should know, that possession of the firearm by a child is unlawful under Federal or State law; and

And last but not least Section 801 will really get your blood boiling.  So as that some of our leadership will not participate in the public option of the proposed health care plan, (H.R. 3200), the government authorities are exempt from these provisions.

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.

With all of this said, H.R. 45 appears to do more harm to the people of America than those that it protects.  I get the impression that its goal is to create a generation who are opposed to the use of guns altogether.

If you were partial to the United Nations Gun Ban, this would be your bill!

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://www.spartanburgspark.com Steve Shanafelt

    All of these changes seem pretty minor to me. I understand the constitutional argument against the law, but from a common-sense perspective in the modern world — rather than the frontier world of the 18th century — having some kind of documentation and basic skills requirement for gun ownership seems very reasonable. I think it’s reasonable to expect that having a gun would require as much personal responsibility and accountability as, say, being able to drive a car.

    • http://mahlerforcongress.com Rick

      The goal of many in Congress is to introduce many “minor” bills to have them add up in the end. If they strip away our freedoms a little at a time it’s harder to notice. According to the US Constitution, states have the right to leave the Union if they no longer wish to be a part. How well did that go over in the past? (civil war, just an example)I am not an advocate of secession, but 37 states have introduced resolutions for State sovereignty and 7 have passed it so far. What this shows us is that more people are paying attention to the increasing size and control of the Federal Government. The stimulus drove alot of that with the rading state’s rights for money. We need to review laws we have on the books before we add any more. The problem with the Fed is, what we think is reasonable is just the beginning. Just look at their history. How many “temporary” programs stay temporary?

  • Pingback: Blog Report: Saturday, Aug. 14, 2009 | Spartanburg Spark()