Anyone think H.R. 45 is going to pass? It is the prime mover of the far right talkers now.

[1776Forever]

I have heard this on Dobbs, Beck and other right wing windbags who bring in AG Eric Holder much of the time even though it was introduced by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) and is called a comprehensive anti-gun bill. What do you think - Will it pass?

The following is from a more moderate gun rights website (National Association for Gun Rights) most of them are even more radical then this one is:

H.R. 45 Does has three main components.

1. Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.

2. Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

3. Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section

To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records -- including mental heath records -- to the Attorney General's office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an "appropriate" fee of $25 per firearm.

Additionally, every firearm sale would be recorded in a database, which would track the serial number, make, model and identity of the owner. The legislation would also make all private sales of firearms illegal, and a felony offense.

In addition to these regulations, the legislation includes excessive regulations and penalties for bureaucratic missteps from simple failures to report address changes to failure to report stolen weapons.

Provisions of H.R. 45 include:

# Requires passing a written examination to purchase a firearm.

# Releases medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the Attorney General for Government review.

# Requires a two-day waiting period on all firearms purchases.

# Institutes a fee of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

# Creates a national database with all firearms and firearms owners registered by serial number with the Federal Government.

# A Federal ban on all private firearms sales.

# Increases in penalties for clerical errors related to this national firearms registry.

...........

This site even goes on to say they don't think it will pass in the original form (link at http://nationalgunrights.org/HR45%20Firearms%20control.pdf ) but it fuels the fire of the far right and I for one would like to see it either be put down quickly or passed after more discussion in order to stop the hate talk that is brewing against the Obama Administration concerning it. After all we know the Supreme Court has all ready said no one can take guns away from those who wish to own them.

Anyone have any ideas on this? :shrug:

[Juche]

1. I don't agree with the mental health records part

That is just going to stigmatize the mentally ill even further and make even more refuse to go into treatment for fear they will lose their rights. I saw a psychiatrist about 2 years ago about mental health problems (which were transient and were due to overwhelming stress I was experiencing at the time and drug interactions) and am now pretty much uninsurable because it'll be listed as a pre-existing condition. Now I might not be able to buy a gun. Luckily I already have one I bought a while back.

Thats right motherfuckers. Crazy person with a gun.

[RB TexLa]

2. What about the tests? Who's going to administer those? Local law enforcement?

Wonder who will be failing gun tests in parts of the south. :shrug:

[1776Forever]

7. The document has this on regulations - I can see now why the AG is brought up so many times.......

SEC. 402. REGULATIONS.

7 (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 rea1sonably 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 quali1fying firearms used in criminal activity.

[1776Forever]

3. Thanks for the honest post - that is what I think we need. I can see your point.

I have heard that there are some ex-military guys who had a hard time when they first come back that are questioning this also. I can understand that issue. Maybe with the OK of the physician that treated them who will give them a clean slate they could be given a reprieve?

[Juche]

5. The stigma against mental health in the military is a disaster

From what I know seeking mental health help will screw up your career in the military. So people just bottle it up which probably leads to increases in things like domestic violence.

If you have been committed against your will and declared by a court to be a 'danger to yourself and others' then I can understand the background check if that is what they are looking for. But I am worried that everyone who has ever seen a psychiatrist or gotten a prescription for a mental health drug will find themselves in the dragnet.

[1776Forever]

9. That is exactly right! Your statement is crystal clear here as to why this issue is so important!

I am totally with you.

[tularetom]

4. I sure hope it doesn't pass and it will kill any hope of bipartisanship

Although I'm a collector of antique firearms I object to this more on privacy issues in general rather than anything specifically pertaining to gun ownership.

The government already knows too fricking much about all of us. I don't want them to know even more.

[RB TexLa]

6. Hopefully this dies a quick instant death in committee

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Bill does not make sense

2 day wating period BUT all those addtional time consuming steps?

Database?

Uh...I don't own a gun.
I don't want to own a gun.

This bill is going to set off a shitstorm of state's rights arguement.

for the record, gun laws vary by state, and in Al. you jsut go buy the damn thing, no registration, no training, no backgrond checks.
I am not sayig yea or nay to the smarty ness of that, but I sure can see the state's right argument which will be used against Feds. compiling databases.

The bill progress can be followed on govtrack.us

[MadHound]

10. I think that they should hang this up in committee for awhile

Let it be a Damocles Sword, dangling, dangling. Call it a stimulus move, because every gun nut out there will start buying like there's no tomorrow, and god knows, we need all the activity in this economy we can get:evilgrin:

[1776Forever]

12. You are so right on - I watched D.L. Hughley on CNN last week in TX at a gun store!

Wow were they busy! He even brought up the assault gun ban up and told them he like guns too! It was a great show!

Here is a video from it:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dl-visits-texas-gun-shop/2446009962

[tkmorris]

11. I don't like it

I don't like guns much, haven't picked one up since I left the Navy 16 years ago actually, and I do think there are places where our current gun laws may as well not even exist due to loopholes you could drive a truck through. This bill though, at this time, isn't the way to go IMHO.

I don't like the govt poking through my medical records for starters. That just reeks of totalitarianism. If there are legitimate medical reasons one should not own a gun (paranoid schizophrenia anyone?) that's fine, require medical practitioners to flag their name and forward it on to whatever govt agency needs to know but WITHOUT any detail. Complete medical records are a no-go.

The ban on private sales seems a bit too much. It's completely unenforceable in any case, at least in those cases where there is nefarious intent.

A written exam? I am sure there are some responsible gun-owners out there who aren't particularly literate, just as there are in any subset of Americans. Why a written exam? What real good will it do?

The registration and waiting period provisions seem reasonable. I don't think that would unduly inconvenience anyone, but they would certainly provide some benefit in reducing spur of the moment violent crimes and make some gun crimes a bit easier to track and solve.

The bill as is would just stir up a lot of resentment, at a time we can little afford it. The country faces hard times and we have political capital to spend, there is no point in blowing the whole wad on being overzealous gun nannies.

[1776Forever]

13. I think you hit the nail on the head with your last paragraph!..........

"The bill as is would just stir up a lot of resentment,at a time we can little afford it. The country faces hard times and we have political capital to spend, there is no point in blowing the whole wad on being overzealous gun nannies."

I believe this is just not something we need to have hanging around for too long. Especially with all the talk of Civil War that Greenwald has spoken about and nut jobs like Beck and other right-wing fanatics feed their fanatical listeners with!

Right on!:thumbsup:

[safeinOhio]

14. I found this post

Source: The Hill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.


“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
<snip>

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-...

[1776Forever]

15. Thanks for the post - Now we will have to wait & see where this goes - or hopefullly doesn't go. n/t

[Still Sensible]

16. I support reasonable gun control but I think this

proposal is an incredible overreach. I don't believe the medical records AG review would pass constitutional muster on privacy grounds. And I'm pretty darn sure the private ban would absolutely be unconstitutional.

[csziggy]

17. I think I read at GovTrack.us that Rush has introduced this bill a number of times

And it has never made it out of committee. GovTrack.us is down right now but the link is: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

[1776Forever]

18. It's up now - Excellent site - thank you! Here is what it says about this bill...

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.

...........

I hope this one goes down soon. It isn't the right time for this right now IMO.

[csziggy]

26. Previous: H.R. 2666: 110th Congress Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007

H.R. 2666:
110th Congress

This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.

Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 110th Congress, in 2007-2008.

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2666

[doc03]

19. If it does we will lose the congress in 2010

and the Presidency in 2012. That bill needs killed immediately, I would like to see the President slap it down.

[whoneedstickets]

20. Need to pass a test to drive...why not to have a gun?

We register all vehicles for a variety of law enforcement reasons. Why shouldn't we track who is responsible for what firearms?
And don't give me that turner-diary inspired crap about taking up arms against oppressive government. That idiocy may fly at FR but not among people with active gray matter.

[ContinentalOp]

22. Yeah, no shit.

Hey paranoids, the government knows where you live if you are a licensed and registered automobile owner! OOOOH, SCARY! Not only that but there are age limitations, you have to pass a test, and they can discriminate against you for medical reasons!

Now, a car can reasonably be considered a deadly weapon. If I could bring an Escalade to a Civil War battlefield I'm sure I could mow down quite a few Confederate troops before they could stop me. Therefore I'm pretty sure that car ownership is vital to the existence of a well regulated militia. And it's clearly unconstitutional for the government to register automobiles, require age-restricted licenses and testing, record serial numbers, etc. That's just the MAN trying to thwart my bad ass Escalade killing battalion!

[1776Forever]

23. It all seems rational until you realize States Rights and the environment we have now.

There are those who think by doing these steps "we" will be more safe. I think that there will always be ways around getting a gun in the black market and I don't like it either! It is true what you said but there are those who are using this issue as a wedge issue and right now if you read about what Salon's Greenwald has written about a Civil War brewing out there we just don't need to rock this boat right now.

Here is Greenwald's article if you didn't see it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/index.html

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

25. You do not need registration, a license, or insurance to own & operate a vehicle.

If you are on private property (ranch, large business, countryside, etc...) you can let a 5 yr old drive a car. If you're going to use state/federal property to drive your car you have to follow their rules. Licensing/insurance/registration is only required if you operate a vehicle on public property (highway, interstate, city). In short... you do not need to pass a test to drive/own a car.

We already do track who is responsible enough to own firearms. It's called NICS. It prohibits criminals from legally purchasing firearms from any dealers. Registering firearms one make one lick of difference in the US. Registries are costly and ineffective: see canada's registry. Also, gun registration elicits a huge negative response from most gun owners and RWers. Read this publication. It's actually rather neutral if not left: http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
It shows why, with actual research and citations, this bill would fail miserably.

How about to vote in America, each citizen:
be required to pass a written politics examination
release all mental health records
pay a fee of $25 per ballot cast.

[benEzra]

27. You have to get a license to carry a gun, just like you have to get a license to drive in public.

You do NOT need a license merely to possess a car on your private property, or to transport it on a trailer to a track. No registration, either.

The bill referenced in the OP is not about licensure to carry (which is already law); it is about licensure merely to POSSESS a gun, even guns that have been in your family for a hundred years.

FWIW, to obtain a carry license, I had to pass a Federal and state background check, a mental health records check, an FBI fingerprint check, take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range.

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Require insurance for gun owners and you have a great law.

[jmg257]

24. This bill requires a federal License (or equal state license) for the

possession of "qualifying firearms" (all handguns, all semi-autos w/detachable mags).

The test is required to obtain the license (renewable every 5yrs) (not each arm purchased). Didn't see any waiting periods in there, maybe I missed it.

There are no licensing provisions for other types of arms.

Qualifying arms owned before the active date of the bill apparently don't need to be registered, but a firearm license must be obtained within 2 years to "legally" own them.

ALL of the control for regulations, testing, licensing submission, fees and issuing, the federal database, etc. etc. etc. is the responsibility of 1 man - the attorney general. (Well - don't that suck, especially with the current anti-gun nut holding that position.)

Dealers must confirm a buyer's license at time of sale, and submit bill of sale information to the feds for registration; no discussion of fees required for them to do so. No discussion of fees dealers can charge for submitting original license applications to the AG.

VERY nasty, thing this.


Well, OK then...

If you see this one getting close to passing, buy ALL the "qualifying arms" you can get your hands on because it seem this is the only way they won't be registered (and so not as subject to subsequent confiscation). Make sure you get enough for yourself, to sell privately to others 'now', and to "gift" to family members later, cause that is still allowed (assuming they get a license too) w/o dealer intervention (registration).

Also, buy ALL the decent non-qualifying arms you can, because their value will go up as they will be much easier to purchase, no license or registration will be involved, and they can still be transfered privately.

I would expect manufacturers to come up with new models of semi-autos with built in mags (M1, SKS anyone?) that won't "qualify", so they will get real popular real quick also. Hmmm...


Anyway, let's hope this dies in committee, but these days I wouldn't bet your life on it.

[Kip Humphrey]

28. HR 45 proves Democrats should never play with guns because they always shoot themselves in the foot

[riverdeep]

29. Bobby Rush, eh?

Unfortunately, that's another connection to Obama they will make, whether he has anything to do with or not.

Making private sales illegal pretty much tells you all you need to know about the practicality of this proposal.

[TWiley]

30. Well, I hope it passes

Especially the national registry part. Right wing extremists are typically armed to the teeth, and it would be nice to have a way to monitor them

[Optical.Catalyst]

31. We've got the Republicans where we want them, and it is time to finish them off

Should Bobby Rush be successful in his endeavors to pass a sweeping gun control bill, it will breath new life into the Reich Wing.

Rather than President Obama fixing the disaster of the Bush Administration, he will be fighting a Newt Gingrich style fight for the rest of his term.

Driving the Republicans out of existence is more important than any single piece of legislation.