H.r. 45 Blair Holt Gun Control Bill

[Proteas]

I was recently sent this in an email, and the only viable article I could find on this comes from ESPN, so go figure.

=======================

Blair Holt gun control bill rehashed

By Wade Bourne
Special to ESPNOutdoors.com

To many gun owners, it's the tsunami of gun control legislation, the mother of all efforts to restrict private gun ownership and the guarantees of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To others, it's just the latest anti-gun agitation, a formerly defeated proposal dredged back up for another try in this time of shifting political winds.

"It" is H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. This bill was introduced in the 111th Congress by U. S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) on Jan. 6, 2009. Failing to attract any co-sponsors, it was referred for consideration to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it now rests awaiting further action.

This bill is sweeping in its gun control proposals. Its summary description reads, "To provide for the implementation of a system for licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes."

If enacted, this bill would prohibit anyone from owning any type of handgun without obtaining a license for such ownership. The same would be true for any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition-feeding device.

Further, all sales of these firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. The bill also directs the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system. And it would make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm.

"This bill validates the concerns of sportsmen and gun owners about what the new congress and administration portend for Second Amendment rights," says Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice-President/General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Keane continues, "The U.S. Supreme Court definitively said in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment provides individual civil rights to law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. (They don't have to be in a militia to own and keep guns.) This bill, however, would treat those citizens who exercise their civil liberties like criminals."

Thus, another gun control struggle may be looming. Pro-gun advocates see the Blair Holt bill as a direct assault on their constitutional rights and freedom. Anti-gun activists feel the time might be ripe for "change" promised by the Obama administration to include this comprehensive gun control legislation.

Blair Holt, the bill's namesake, was a 16-year old honor student in Chicago who was murdered in May, 2007 when another teenager began firing a handgun on a public bus in a gang-related attack. Acting heroically, Holt moved to shield a female rider from the bullets, and he was struck in the abdomen and died.

At his funeral, Rep. Bobby Rush pledged to introduce a strong new gun tracking bill in the 110th Congress in Holt's memory. Rush's Blair Holt Bill Licensing and Record of Sale Bill of 2007 failed to make it out of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Rush's new bill in the current 111th Congress is a rehash of this previous effort.

Toure Muhammad, communications director for Rep. Rush, says while the Blair Holt bill would set up a system for tracking guns, it would not an infringement of Second Amendment rights. He explains, "This is not an attempt to ban guns. It is not intended in any way to impede the constitutional right to own or carry a gun.

"Instead, it would simply set up a system for registration of the type guns specified in the bill," Muhammad continues. "It would provide a way for police to track a gun that is used illegally back to its owner. It would be similar to the system we have for registering and titling automobiles."

Muhammad says in 2008, an average of 45 people were killed each day in the U.S. with guns. He says, "The urban cultural dynamic can't be ignored here. In the cities, people are killed daily by other people with guns. Rep. Rush's bill is an effort to curb this violence."

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has another take on the Blair Holt bill. This pro-gun lobby feels it is flawed in that it focuses on the instruments of crime rather than on the criminals who use the instruments. And further, the NRA believes the Blair Hold bill would turn law-abiding citizens into violators of the law.

NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons explains, "Several provisions in this bill would make compliance nearly impossible. For instance, the bill spells out that if a firearms license holder fails to notify the Attorney General of an address change within 60 days, that person would be subject to a 5 year prison term and a fine of up to $250,000."

Parsons continues, "This bill goes against the core of what the NRA works for. Any kind of bill that would require photographing and fingerprinting for simple possession of a firearm is fundamentally different in opinion from that which the NRA holds. Any law should target the criminal element, but this law would simply further burden law-abiding people."

So, how likely is the Blair Holt bill's chance for passage? Pro-gun activists are vigilant but don't seem overly worried about it. They point out that the bill's failure to attract co-sponsors is an indication of a lack of enthusiasm for it among other congressmen. They feel it is too far-reaching and repressive of gun owners' rights to merit serious consideration by a majority of Congress.

Lawrence Keane of the NSSF states, "If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose (control of) their chamber in upcoming mid-term elections (2010). The leadership in the House knows that." Keane says some 80 million-plus U.S. citizens own firearms, representing nearly half the households in the nation. He believes that House Democrats will allow the Blair Holt bill to die in subcommittee rather than risk the ire of so many pro-gun voters.

Rachel Parsons of the NRA says, "I think our members and other gun owners need to be aware of what's going on, and they should contact their elected representatives about the Blair Holt bill and similar bills. We want to see to it that bills like this that trample on Second Amendment rights never reach the House (of Representatives) floor.

"This bill has gotten people pretty fired up," Parsons concludes. "They see it as a threat to their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

Clicky.

===============

So... to all you nitwits that posted in the Gun Owners Are Fucking Stupid topic a while back about how Obama and the new congress wouldn't try to pass some new kind of uber strict gun control legislation aimed at screwing over legally responsible gun owners, I've got something to say; I told you so.

[stafffighter]

Ok, you're gonna have to help me here. How is strict regestration an infringment?

[Proteas]

At 6/18/09 12:14 AM, stafffighter wrote: How is strict regestration an infringment?

Why does the government need to fingerprint and generally be up the ass of a law abiding gun owner, when it's not likely they are going to be the one's committing gun crime? Can anyone answer me that?

[stafffighter]

At 6/18/09 12:35 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:14 AM, stafffighter wrote: How is strict regestration an infringment?

Why does the government need to fingerprint and generally be up the ass of a law abiding gun owner, when it's not likely they are going to be the one's committing gun crime? Can anyone answer me that?

Did it occur to you that maybe laws like this might make it harder for the people who do commit crimes to get their hands on a weapon?

[Proteas]

At 6/18/09 12:41 AM, stafffighter wrote: Did it occur to you that maybe laws like this might make it harder for the people who do commit crimes to get their hands on a weapon?

And this does what about said guns already in circulation?

Oh that's right, jack shit.

[Yorik]

At 6/18/09 12:41 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:35 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:14 AM, stafffighter wrote: How is strict regestration an infringment?

Why does the government need to fingerprint and generally be up the ass of a law abiding gun owner, when it's not likely they are going to be the one's committing gun crime? Can anyone answer me that?

Did it occur to you that maybe laws like this might make it harder for the people who do commit crimes to get their hands on a weapon?

People who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. Criminals are not afraid to do illegal things such as obtaining firearms illegally because they intend to break the law in the first place. Making it harder for people to legally own weapons does not hinder criminals.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 12:41 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:35 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:14 AM, stafffighter wrote: How is strict regestration an infringment?

Why does the government need to fingerprint and generally be up the ass of a law abiding gun owner, when it's not likely they are going to be the one's committing gun crime? Can anyone answer me that?

Did it occur to you that maybe laws like this might make it harder for the people who do commit crimes to get their hands on a weapon?

Actually, yes it did and on the surface that is a logical conclusion to draw.

However, studies by the FBI and academic criminologists show that criminals do not obtain the firearms they use in crime through legitimate means.

Legitimate means. That is what this legislation is seeking to regulate. If a person is obtaining a gun for the purpose of protection while they engage in the narcotics industry...this law will not keep them from obtaining a firearm. For those very few people who obtain a gun through legitimate methods for use in the drug trade...they are already tapped into an established smuggling system that delivers illicit goods to those who demand them. It is naive to think that gun control aimed at law-abiding citizens will be effective even at the margins.

Even if we're talking about crimes of passion, this kind of legislation would not effect that (again...not even on the margins). A shotgun is not described (unless I missed it) in this legislation and that is FAR more dangerous/lethal than any handgun or semi-auto "assault rifle".

In the end this legislation sets up a bureaucracy that will siphon money away from programs such as education, job training or prison reform. These are public policies that need more funding and will INFINITLY more to reduce homicides than any gun control legislation.

[poxpower]

At 6/18/09 04:15 AM, TheMason wrote: However, studies by the FBI and academic criminologists show that criminals do not obtain the firearms they use in crime through legitimate means.

So where do they get the guns?
Who makes them?

I know criminals don't make their own guns, so at one point in the chain someone's taking legal guns and selling them to criminals.

Unless they come from out of the country which is possible.

In the end this legislation sets up a bureaucracy that will siphon money away from programs such as education, job training or prison reform.

Likely.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 04:51 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 6/18/09 04:15 AM, TheMason wrote: However, studies by the FBI and academic criminologists show that criminals do not obtain the firearms they use in crime through legitimate means.

So where do they get the guns?
Who makes them?

The same people who make killer cars... (j/k)

I know criminals don't make their own guns, so at one point in the chain someone's taking legal guns and selling them to criminals.

Unless they come from out of the country which is possible.

In the mid-1990s customs officials intercepted AK-47s being smuggled in from China. Now I'm not talking about the Norinco MAK-90s that are only semi-auto, but rather rifles made to military specs. So yeah, coming from other countries is the point I was making when I brought up the established smuggling routes.

Another major source is theft. When I was stationed in S. Carolina, there was a gun store that was broken into. The guys drove through the store front and gathered guns. Then there is home or car burglary. And no, registration and licensing will not do anything to prevent or deter theft. What does it matter to the criminal that someone's property is registered or titled to them? Do you think the carjacker cares about titles or driver licenses?

Do strawman purchases happen? Yes, I'm sure there are people out there buying guns and reselling them to criminals. However, guns can still be traced. Gun stores keep records of what is sold, and when a background check is accomplished the federal government requires that a request be tied to the specific gun being sold...they ask for manufacture, model, calibur and seriel number for the gun and name, social security number and proof of ID for the purchaser.

Maybe we could strengthen our record keeping system on gun sales. This would probably reduce so-called strawman purchases...but only marginally.

In the end, there is no gun control policy above and beyond what we have now that makes any sense from a public policy perspective.

[fli]

First off--
It's a newly introduced BILL.

Bills are always introduced and most of the time... they die in committee while trying to get towards the president's desk.

Congress probably hasn't even debated on it yet-- and, almost always, they tend to change it. Who knows it would look like the original if it even gets close towards the presidential desk.

I'm failing to see how Obama has fulfilled Nostra-gun-us' prophecy that he'll take away everyone's guns. He's miles from seeing this bill get through. We may see him turn grey before it gets to him.

At this stage-- this is major over-reaction.
C'mon... this is stuff we learned on Saturday morning during the late 80s and early 90s!

In any case,
let's look at the wording of the bill:
"To provide for the implementation of a system for licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes."

To me, it says to create a license system for certain fire arms (as in, not all....) and to create records of sales.

I'm not sure how exactly this is uber-strict gun control. It's not stopping you from owning a gun.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 06:03 AM, fli wrote: Bills are always introduced and most of the time... they die in committee while trying to get towards the president's desk.

I think this one will die in committee. Or at most, the Senate will kill it. I don't think there are enough Democrats willing to put their seats in jeopardy to pass this bill.

At this stage-- this is major over-reaction.

No it is not. I'm just stating that this legislation is not a good idea. As a matter of public policy it will accomplish very little while drawing resources away from programs that make more sense.

In any case,
let's look at the wording of the bill:
"To provide for the implementation of a system for licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes."

To me, it says to create a license system for certain fire arms (as in, not all....) and to create records of sales.

Yes, and I don't think that is necessary. It will create a new agency, or expand an already existing one, to expend resources the US government just does not have. Thus it will draw money away from things that matter such as education, jobs training or prison reforms.

It will only reduce crime at the margins while drawing money away from programs that would put those funds to more productive use.

[poxpower]

At 6/18/09 05:29 AM, TheMason wrote:

And no, registration and licensing will not do anything to prevent or deter theft.

Probably not.
Of course the easier you make it for everyone to sell guns, the more likely it becomes that there will be shitty establishments with poor security which are easier to attack and steal from.

So let me ask you this: if there was a law that required people who sell dangerous tools/substances to meet certain security minimums, would you be opposed to it?

In the end, there is no gun control policy above and beyond what we have now that makes any sense from a public policy perspective.

Yeah I'm begging to suspect that the high death rates from guns in the USA isn't really tied to guns but rather lots of crime. The USA is socially...unique...

[Dekagaru]

I think the right to own firearms is a major symbol of the freedom this country is supposed to represent. You shouldn't own a gun if,
*You are a convicted/pending felon
*Have a history of mental illness
*You are trying to purchase anything BIGGER than an assault rifle. (I think M-14s are awesome)

That is all there should be. Laws requiring a few days waiting periods are smart, they prevent people from buying and using weaponry on a whim.

I am also for laws that require permits to carry weapons in public places. People should at least receive education about when and where lethal violence is truly the answer.

There are two types of liberals out there, ones who actually care about freedoms of ALL types for EVERYBODY. And those who foolishly envision this absurd utopia free of violence and without the need for weapons in the first place...

[Korriken]

At 6/18/09 04:51 AM, poxpower wrote:

So where do they get the guns?
Who makes them?

I know criminals don't make their own guns, so at one point in the chain someone's taking legal guns and selling them to criminals.

I wouldnt be so sure about that.

also...

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 06:36 AM, Dekagaru wrote: I think the right to own firearms is a major symbol of the freedom this country is supposed to represent. You shouldn't own a gun if,

*You are trying to purchase anything BIGGER than an assault rifle. (I think M-14s are awesome)

By definition an assault rifle round is an intermediate calibur, bigger than a handgun round but not as big as traditional high-powered rounds that are used in deer hunting. For example, the 5.56mm round used by many assault rifles shoots a bullet not much bigger in diameter than a .22.

So there is a need for guns that shoot a bigger round than an assault rifle. At close range an AK-47 (semi-auto and w/a 5 round magazine) is perfectly acceptable for hunting deer. But if you're hunting long range...you need a full-powered round. If you're hunting anything bigger, like Moose or Bear, you will need something far bigger than an assault rifle round.

On a side note, a M-14 is not an assault rifle. Instead, it is a battle rifle since it uses a full-powered round instead of an intermediate powered round.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 06:28 AM, poxpower wrote: Of course the easier you make it for everyone to sell guns, the more likely it becomes that there will be shitty establishments with poor security which are easier to attack and steal from.

So let me ask you this: if there was a law that required people who sell dangerous tools/substances to meet certain security minimums, would you be opposed to it?

I can speak to both statements at once. It is not easy for everyone to sell firearms, legally. There are certain security minimums that one has to meet.

* 21
* Not be prohibited from handling/possessing firearms (ie: background checks)
* Not violated the Gun Control Act in particular
* Not lied on the BATF application
* Have a store front where they will be selling their firearms.
* Pay a fee up to $200 for a three year license, less for renewal.

But, guess what? This is just for the federal government. Having a storefront requires overhead such as rent. Then there are insurance fees for your inventory. Now, if you have insurance and you're selling guns you have to install security systems such as bars on the windows and alarms and safes. If you choose not to, either you can't get insurance or the premium would be so high it would consume more than your profits. And getting the insurance probably is not an option because a municipality, county or state government is probably going to require a certain amount of insurance to get a business license or incorporated. Then there are building codes, and on and on and on.

This is why bills such as this would only be marginally effective...and quite probably ZERO effective. There are simply so many layers.

Then you have to keep records on BATF approved forms for as long as they are licensed, and upon retiring surrender these records to the BATF. So this bill would be providing for a tracking system that ALREADY exists!

Seriously, going into the gun dealer business is a huge pain in the ass.

In the end, there is no gun control policy above and beyond what we have now that makes any sense from a public policy perspective.

Yeah I'm begging to suspect that the high death rates from guns in the USA isn't really tied to guns but rather lots of crime. The USA is socially...unique...

It's not that we're socially unique, instead its that we are fundamentally different as a society from Europe, Japan and Korea.

* We are far more ethnically diverse. Furthermore, this is compounded by the fact that up until the 1960s the African American community was repressed as an underclass.
* We do not have an effective policy to deal with migrant workers from Mexico, thereby creating another underclass that is invisible.
* Our inner-city school systems are degrading because of bad policies from the last sixteen years (I blame both Clinton and Bush).
* Our prison system has totally given up on rehabilitation. Now they are nothing but Crime Universities where sociopaths can get together and trade "industry" secrets, network and recruit. Then when they are released, the social stigma attached to ex-cons makes it that much harder for people trying to walk the straight and narrow to keep on the path.

In the end, the political science tells us that it is these factors (as well as others such as environment, population density & family life) are far more causal for the US' violent crime than the availability of guns.

That is why I am against further gun control. Scientifically speaking, it will not work.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 07:47 AM, TheMason wrote: And getting the insurance probably is not an option...

This should read: "And NOT getting the insurance is probably NOT an option..."

[Dekagaru]

At 6/18/09 07:22 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/18/09 06:36 AM, Dekagaru wrote: I think the right to own firearms is a major symbol of the freedom this country is supposed to represent. You shouldn't own a gun if,

*You are trying to purchase anything BIGGER than an assault rifle. (I think M-14s are awesome)

By definition an assault rifle round is an intermediate calibur, bigger than a handgun round but not as big as traditional high-powered rounds that are used in deer hunting. For example, the 5.56mm round used by many assault rifles shoots a bullet not much bigger in diameter than a .22.

So there is a need for guns that shoot a bigger round than an assault rifle. At close range an AK-47 (semi-auto and w/a 5 round magazine) is perfectly acceptable for hunting deer. But if you're hunting long range...you need a full-powered round. If you're hunting anything bigger, like Moose or Bear, you will need something far bigger than an assault rifle round.

On a side note, a M-14 is not an assault rifle. Instead, it is a battle rifle since it uses a full-powered round instead of an intermediate powered round.

I was not refering to cartage size, I was simply stating that there is no need for a civilian without a license to own a chain-gun or grenade launcher or 50 cal rifle. Thats what I meant by bigger than an assault rifle.

[stafffighter]

At 6/18/09 12:48 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:41 AM, stafffighter wrote: Did it occur to you that maybe laws like this might make it harder for the people who do commit crimes to get their hands on a weapon?

And this does what about said guns already in circulation?

Oh that's right, jack shit.

They could make it easier to lock up people under investigation for not getting weapons the right way. Or to get them away from people caught for other things. Like Pox said there are a lot of guns out there but they aren't coming out of a magic lamp.

At 6/18/09 01:03 AM, Yorik wrote:

People who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. Criminals are not afraid to do illegal things such as obtaining firearms illegally because they intend to break the law in the first place. Making it harder for people to legally own weapons does not hinder criminals.

By that logic we should have no laws at all. ANARCHY!!!!!!!
I am so fucking tired of that additude from gun advocats. By all means protect your own but it does not end with that. The only reason you have the security that grants you these rights is because you exist as part of society larger than yourself. If you want to go back to tribalism that's fine but you wouldn't be writing on the internet about that.

[Dekagaru]

By that logic we should have no laws at all. ANARCHY!!!!!!!
I am so fucking tired of that additude from gun advocats. By all means protect your own but it does not end with that. The only reason you have the security that grants you these rights is because you exist as part of society larger than yourself. If you want to go back to tribalism that's fine but you wouldn't be writing on the internet about that.

It seems to me everyone wants to think in extremes. Some think it should be anarchy, while others think that it should be so difficult to obtain a legal weapon that only a select few can own one. For this issue I saw we look towards the middle ground. I think existing weapon laws in most states are fine. Some may need to loosen up while others become more strict.

[fli]

At 6/18/09 01:03 AM, Yorik wrote: People who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. Criminals are not afraid to do illegal things such as obtaining firearms illegally because they intend to break the law in the first place. Making it harder for people to legally own weapons does not hinder criminals.

But how is gun registration making it harder for people to get a gun?
"Oh damn, I can't sign... I can't get a gun!!!!"

Cars are registered. Has that made it harder for people to own a car?

I see more benefits for the gun owner than disadvantages.
A gun is stolen, the gun owner could at least report it and 1.) not be liable, 2.) have a system for other gun owners to not buy back a stolen gun, and 3.) give cops a way to map out a gun's history and trial for the persecution in court.

[Yorik]

At 6/18/09 04:51 AM, poxpower wrote: So where do they get the guns?
Who makes them?

I know criminals don't make their own guns, so at one point in the chain someone's taking legal guns and selling them to criminals.

Actually, it is entirely possible for criminals to make guns. One of my uncles owns all of the equipment necessary to manufacture a fully automatic AK-47 or even design his own weapon. He obtained this equipment through legal means, of course, but it's easier than you might think to acquire anything you may desire if you are willing to break the law.

Aside from that, many illegal firearms do, in fact, come into this country illegally in the first place for the purpose of distribution to less than reputable characters. And it's not just our country, it's EVERY country with strict gun legislation. This is the reason that strict gun legislation dosn't work... It only causes problems for people that want to purchase guns legally. In fact, I think criminals would LOVE it if american citizens were not allowed to own guns.

[Proteas]

At 6/18/09 04:25 PM, Dekagaru wrote: I was not refering to cartage size, I was simply stating that there is no need for a civilian without a license to own a chain-gun or grenade launcher or 50 cal rifle. Thats what I meant by bigger than an assault rifle.

... and who exactly is arguing that people should be allowed to own such things, or that they are even legal to begin with?

At 6/18/09 04:33 PM, stafffighter wrote: They could make it easier to lock up people under investigation for not getting weapons the right way.

And that would be who, exactly? Someone who forgot to fill out a form properly? Someone who moved and forgot to give notice to the local authorities? Yeah, this bill is aimed at the big time criminals my man, it's going to change society for the better.

Like Pox said there are a lot of guns out there but they aren't coming out of a magic lamp.

And as Mason pointed out; the guns used in such crimes don't all come from legal gun owners, and they're not all legally bought to begin with.

The only reason you have the security that grants you these rights is because you exist as part of society larger than yourself.

So why does society deem me a threat because I want to buy a gun legally? Instead of wasting so much time, effort, and tax money writing laws against people like me, why not write laws that actually seek to penalize criminals?

At 6/18/09 09:13 PM, fli wrote: I see more benefits for the gun owner than disadvantages.
A gun is stolen, the gun owner could at least report it and 1.) not be liable, 2.) have a system for other gun owners to not buy back a stolen gun, and 3.) give cops a way to map out a gun's history and trial for the persecution in court.

And also give the cops a reason for turning the gunowner into the Attorney General and having the gunowner branded as being irresponsible for allowing his gun to be stolen to begin with, thus allowing heavy punitive fines and possible jailtime.

I mean, hey, the bill already has that written into for failing to fill out a damn form, it's not a big stretch of the imagination to think they'd tack on something like that to it.

And on top of that; there's no mention of wether or not this bill is retroactive. If it is, I ask how it will be enforced, and if it's not, then I ask how this is going to be anymore effective than the Assault Weapons Ban that allowed pre-ban weapons to still be bought and sold legally under the law.

[fli]

At 6/19/09 12:42 AM, Proteas wrote: And also give the cops a reason for turning the gunowner into the Attorney General and having the gunowner branded as being irresponsible for allowing his gun to be stolen to begin with, thus allowing heavy punitive fines and possible jailtime.

And so, in a circumstance where a gunowner acted irresponsible, the only difference between registration and no-registration is that the irresponsible gun owner would never get punished with neither fine nor jailtime????

In any case, being branded irresponsible still wouldn't prevent a person from owning a gun.

I mean, hey, the bill already has that written into for failing to fill out a damn form, it's not a big stretch of the imagination to think they'd tack on something like that to it.

And on top of that; there's no mention of wether or not this bill is retroactive. If it is, I ask how it will be enforced, and if it's not, then I ask how this is going to be anymore effective than the Assault Weapons Ban that allowed pre-ban weapons to still be bought and sold legally under the law.

From what I learned recently...
only judges can make a law retroactive or not. At least, state judges. But I don't think it's dissimilar.
I learned this because of the current gay marriage strife in CA...

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 04:33 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 6/18/09 12:48 AM, Proteas wrote:

\: : And this does what about said guns already in circulation?

Oh that's right, jack shit.

They could make it easier to lock up people under investigation for not getting weapons the right way. Or to get them away from people caught for other things. Like Pox said there are a lot of guns out there but they aren't coming out of a magic lamp.

Actually what you are suggesting...already exists. If you are caught w/drugs and you have a gun...taken away. If you are caught poaching (hunting out of season)...your guns are taken away (along with your vehicle and pretty much everything with you except your clothes). If you have a nervous breakdown and the police are called...guns taken away.

This is what I get tired of hearing from people who argue against guns...what they argue for more often than not already exists.

At 6/18/09 01:03 AM, Yorik wrote:

People who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. Criminals are not afraid to do illegal things such as obtaining firearms illegally because they intend to break the law in the first place. Making it harder for people to legally own weapons does not hinder criminals.

By that logic we should have no laws at all. ANARCHY!!!!!!!
I am so fucking tired of that additude from gun advocats. By all means protect your own but it does not end with that. The only reason you have the security that grants you these rights is because you exist as part of society larger than yourself. If you want to go back to tribalism that's fine but you wouldn't be writing on the internet about that.

Actually, there is a validity to this argument. There is a point where society needs laws and there is a point where laws become excessive. We have reached the latter part with our gun laws. There are studies done by psychologists and criminologists that show that more laws will not deter criminals getting guns. Interviews with felons and statistics on recidivism show that gun control, beyond what we currently have, will be effective.

[TheMason]

At 6/18/09 09:13 PM, fli wrote: But how is gun registration making it harder for people to get a gun?
"Oh damn, I can't sign... I can't get a gun!!!!"

Cars are registered. Has that made it harder for people to own a car?

Ask Poxy...you really don't want to go there! :)

I see more benefits for the gun owner than disadvantages.
A gun is stolen, the gun owner could at least report it and 1.) not be liable, 2.) have a system for other gun owners to not buy back a stolen gun, and 3.) give cops a way to map out a gun's history and trial for the persecution in court.

Those benefits are not going to be granted by gun licensing/registration. Why? They already exist!

Guns have serial numbers!
These serial numbers are already traceable through records maintained by licensed gun dealers and the BATF!
Homeowner/Renters insurance policies covers gun theft!

So if a gun is lost or stolen, a gun owner can already call the police and:
1) Not be liable for actions after the fact.
2) These stolen guns can be traced by pawnbrokers/gun dealers to make sure a gun isn't hot. Oh yeah, private citizens can do this as well (I know I have). Then if by not having to "buy" back, you mean replacement...that is what insurance currently is for.
3) Cops can already trace a gun's history!

I don't mean to be insulting here...but do you know anything substantial about this topic?

[poxpower]

At 6/18/09 07:47 AM, TheMason wrote:

I can speak to both statements at once. It is not easy for everyone to sell firearms, legally.

Apparently it's easy enough :o

stuff

99% of these costs aren't unique to gun sales. Sounds to me like all you need to do to turn your shop into a gun shop is get a license and fork over a couple hundred bucks. Big deal.

Anyway you haven't answered the question: if there was a law that required gun shop owners to have tighter security, would you be against it?

That is why I am against further gun control. Scientifically speaking, it will not work.

Seems that way.

[Psycho-Medic]

If anyone would like a link to the bill, here it is.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45 /text

A basic summary is that it would make it illegal to own a firearm unless:
-It is registered
-You are fingerprinted
-You supply a current Driver's License
-You supply your Social Security #
-You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
-Change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
-Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
-Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. (Remember hunting as a kid? Not anymore)
-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from children and is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

Among the things mentioned above, the language of the bill is terrible. It's very unlikely that it will come anywhere near to passing. It's pretty much a huge joke.

[Yorik]

At 6/18/09 04:33 PM, stafffighter wrote: By that logic we should have no laws at all. ANARCHY!!!!!!!
I am so fucking tired of that additude from gun advocats. By all means protect your own but it does not end with that. The only reason you have the security that grants you these rights is because you exist as part of society larger than yourself. If you want to go back to tribalism that's fine but you wouldn't be writing on the internet about that.

That's not what I imply at all. I'm just pointing out that in some cases laws have little impact on the behavior that they attempt to prevent.

I wouldn't call myself a gun advocate... I believe that there should be laws and there should be punishments for breaking those laws, but there is some legislation that exists simply to inconvenience people and in this case the laws are inconveniencing the WRONG people.

Explain to me how gun legislation in the US affects people who illegally obtain weapons from Mexico which may or may not be shipped to Mexico from who-knows-where? It's exactly the same thing as the drug trade, and we all know we've never lost any war harder than we are losing the war on drugs.

[TheMason]

At 6/19/09 06:29 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 6/18/09 07:47 AM, TheMason wrote:

I can speak to both statements at once. It is not easy for everyone to sell firearms, legally.

Apparently it's easy enough :o

stuff

99% of these costs aren't unique to gun sales. Sounds to me like all you need to do to turn your shop into a gun shop is get a license and fork over a couple hundred bucks. Big deal.

Ummmm...No.

One thing that is unique to gun sales (I've done a little more digging) is the security systems that having a license requires. Yes the BATF licensing fees are only a couple of hundred dollars. However, the security systems, storage, overhead of having a storefront...this adds to thousands of dollars.

There are background checks, so not everyone can get one.
There is a significant cost involved between licensing, insurance, rent, security, etc.
Safety/security requirements are unique to gun dealers.

Anyway you haven't answered the question: if there was a law that required gun shop owners to have tighter security, would you be against it?

I am against tighter security because I think what is currently required by law is reasonable. Gun shop owners are required to have tighter security than other retailers. What more do you want?

There is no such thing as a surefire security system that will prevent 100% of thefts.