Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act

[snopes]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

[htonl]

Originally Posted by snopes

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR
45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of
2009. You will get all the information.

It is a real bill: see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...d?bill=h111-45

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a
clip or ANY pistol unless:

It is registered

So?

You are fingerprinted

Mmh. I can see where some people would object to this, but is it actually a big deal?

You supply a current Driver's License

You supply your Social Security #

Shock! You would have to show ID to get a gun license!

You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their
choosing

That's just plain false - there's no mention of this in the text of the bill. The only thing is that you would have to sign a release of mental health records to the government.

Each update - 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.

If I read the act correctly, it's actually up to two years. But no mention of automatically losing the right to own a firearm, that I can see. Or would a federal conviction always have that result anyway? Oh, and the fee is at most $25, which is not exactly onerous.

There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a
child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child
under 18.

Would anyone seriously have a problem with this?

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your
gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for
up to 5 yrs. in prison.

As I read the provisions about inspection, this would only apply to places storing firearms "for distribution in commerce", which presumably doesn't include ordinary gun-owners.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and
disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a
little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone
realizes it.

Why is the slippery-slope argument so universal in discussions of gun registration? As far as I know based on my understanding of US gun law - and I am certainly open to correction on this - it doesn't actually add any new restrictions on eligibility for gun ownership; it just changes the procedure associated with licensing.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by htonl

Would anyone seriously have a problem with this?

More than you might imagine. If it's an absolute "no child can ever touch it or use it in any situation," then I imagine it would be quite controversial, as it would exclude children from learning about guns at all. Then there are the loon fringes who think kids should be going to school armed so they can form an army to stop a school shooting, but they're a small minority. ETA: It's not that first possibility I mentioned.

[hambubba]

Another thing that is created by this, is that gun dealers will be the license givers here. that means they will provide applications, administer testing, file paperwork, etc. This is probably more than many are able to do. There's also a whole class at the AG that will have to be set up for this, with multitudinous paperwork involved.

The existing firearm registration doesn't even get filed with the government very often, how will the new stuff be done? If you are buying a firearm of any type besides black powder, you WILL file registratiion now. This bill doesn't take that away, but adds some fees and rules. The gun transfer thing is vague; this seems to play into any existing firearm that is owned that you want to sell to a friend.

The penalties for selling outside this framework may be a little harsh, too. I'm not really sure what is meant by this bill. "Pistols and rifles with removable clips" is a pretty weird scenario that leaves out many, many rifles and shotguns that do not have this. For instance, you would have to register a Ruger 10/22 with this, but not a Marlin 22. Both use same bullets, one has clip, one does not.

I predict failure of this in committee.

[htonl]

Originally Posted by hambubba

Another thing that is created by this, is that gun dealers will be the license givers here. that means they will provide applications, administer testing, file paperwork, etc. This is probably more than many are able to do. There's also a whole class at the AG that will have to be set up for this, with multitudinous paperwork involved.

OK, I can see how people would object to that, if it puts a much heavier burden on the dealerships. But as I read the bill it says that licenses can be issued by dealers or directly by the government. So a dealer who doesn't want to handle registrations could presumably just say "go get the license and then I'll sell to you".

The existing firearm registration doesn't even get filed with the government very often, how will the new stuff be done? If you are buying a firearm of any type besides black powder, you WILL file registratiion now. This bill doesn't take that away, but adds some fees and rules. The gun transfer thing is vague; this seems to play into any existing firearm that is owned that you want to sell to a friend.

Well, as I see it, if the government has a legitimate interest in knowing when your friend buys a gun from a dealer, they have just as much interest in knowing when he buys it from you.

The penalties for selling outside this framework may be a little harsh, too. I'm not really sure what is meant by this bill. "Pistols and rifles with removable clips" is a pretty weird scenario that leaves out many, many rifles and shotguns that do not have this. For instance, you would have to register a Ruger 10/22 with this, but not a Marlin 22. Both use same bullets, one has clip, one does not.

That statement from the OP is a misinterpretation of the act.

Originally Posted by H.R. 45

(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--
(A) means--
(i) any handgun; or
(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
(B) does not include any antique.

Originally Posted by 18 USC 921

(29) The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.

So it doesn't apply to rifles unless they're semiautomatic and they have a clip (which I presume is what they mean by 'detachable ammunition feeding device').

[jimmy101_again]

You supply a current Driver's License
You supply your Social Security #

That's outrageous! Why should you have to identify yourself when buying a gun to the same level as when you are voting?!!?!?!?

[Emily]

Originally Posted by snopes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Thank you "Snopes" for this information! You're the greatest!

[Mickey Blue]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

That's outrageous! Why should you have to identify yourself when buying a gun to the same level as when you are voting?!!?!?!?

If only they'd worded it to say they were doing so "to keep them dirty illegals from buying guns" they'd probably have much more support.

-MB

[Chloe]

Sounds like a start.

One day this week the local paper had two stories on the same page about children killing their parents with guns, one by accident and one apparently on purpose. The children were 12 and 13.

[Mickey Blue]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Sounds like a start.

One day this week the local paper had two stories on the same page about children killing their parents with guns, one by accident and one apparently on purpose. The children were 12 and 13.

Although I have no problem with children (as defined by "persons under the age of 18) using guns while supervised (heck, I did it in boy scouts), I do think that guns need to be locked up if children are in the house (though I'm not sure I'd make the cut-off as high as 18).

To me it not an issue of freedom, its an issue of having children (which is a choice they made). I use the analogy that right now I can spread all the pills in my house out all over the floor if I want to, but if I did that with kids I would get in trouble for negligence at the least, my freedom to do that with pills didn't change, my having kids did.

-MB

[piper]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

That's outrageous! Why should you have to identify yourself when buying a gun to the same level as when you are voting?!!?!?!?

Well, because in Illinois, unless you are voting early (or have other extenuating circumstances), you don't have to show identification. I think the Legislature has tried to push laws through to require ID but hasn't been successful yet. So it's not the same for all states, just so you're aware.

Not that I disagree with the intent of the law (although I do think 18 is a little high for an age requirement). Except for fingerprinting, most of this is stuff one might expect to do to own a vehicle. And cars, while dangerous, don't have the primary intention of killing. Guns do.