HR 45 Blair Holt (Gun Control Bill)

Travis · Post by **Travis** » July 8th, 2009, 6:24 am

I think this may be my first post in the politics section. However, this may be old news to some of you but others may want to know what is going on.

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

This is a copy and paste from Snopes below but I think it does a good job of explaining it and showing where it came from.

___________________________________________________________

On 10 May 2007, 16-year-old Chicago honor student Blair Holt was riding a bus to school when another teenager began firing a handgun in a gang-related attack. When Holt moved to shield a girl on the bus from the spray of bullets, he was himself hit in the abdomen and died.

At Blair Holt's funeral, Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois (representing the state's First Congressional district) promised to honor Holt's memory by introducing a strong gun tracking bill in Congress. One month later, Rep. Rush introduced Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act to Congress, but it was referred to a subcommittee and languished there without ever having been voted upon. On 6 January 2009, Rush introduced essentially the same bill to Congress again as Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45).

In a nutshell, the Blair Holt bill would:

* Prohibit possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license.

* Require all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers.

* Direct the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system.

* Require the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms.

In order to be issued a firearm license under the provisions of the Blair Holt legislation, applicants would be required to submit the following information to the Attorney General:

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:

* the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age

* the safe handling of firearms

* the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use

* 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

* 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

10. the signature of the applicant

Proponents of the Blair Holt bill maintain that it is not an attempt to ban or otherwise infringe on the constitutional right to own or carry guns; it would simply establish a system for registering and tracking the ownership of guns that are used illegally, similar to the system currently used for automobiles. Opponents of the bill maintain that it "focuses on the instruments of crime rather than on the criminals who use the instruments," and that, rather than targeting the criminal element, it "would simply further burden law-abiding people."

As was the 2007 version of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, the current version has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the fact that the bill does not have even a single co-sponsor makes it unlikely that it will ever be brought to a vote before Congress, much less passed. ESPN Outdoors correspondent Wade Bourne summed up the bill's chances of passage thusly:
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 [National Shooting Sports Foundation] 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.

Sources:

Bourne, Wade. "Blair Holt Gun Control Bill Rehashed."
ESPNOutdoors.com. 23 February 2009.

Piland, Thomas. "Proposed Gun License Law Has Some People Concerned."
KRIS-TV. 11 February 2009.

Rozas, Angela. "Father Relives Trauma of son's Shooting."
Chicago Tribune. 7 October 2008.

Simon, Matthew. "Federal Gun Bill Angers Alaskans."
KTVA-TV. 17 February 2009.

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 9th, 2009, 1:37 pm

see.... I can tell where they are going with these gun control acts, and they totally have the best intentions... but let me ask you... did the kid doing the shooting buy his gun legally? no! So, would stricter laws have prevented this? no! All the stricter laws do is make it harder for someone to obtain a gun legally.
the fact is, you can kill someone with a knife, a stick or even your bare hands, laws reguarding guns will not hold back human nature. check out countries with total bans on guns... do they still have murderers? yes.
People have been killing people since the dawn of time and will continue to. The fact is we're living in probably the least violent time in history. has anyone on the board witnessed mass genocide in person? has anyone here been to a hanging? Front lines at normandy?
It really sucks when it happens to kids, but these laws aren't going to prevent anything other than maybe an honest persons ability to defend themselves or their family.

lewisclan · Post by **lewisclan** » July 9th, 2009, 5:00 pm

dannygraves wrote: It really sucks when it happens to kids, but these laws aren't going to prevent anything other than maybe an honest persons ability to defend themselves or their family.

well said sir

Travis · Post by **Travis** » July 9th, 2009, 8:57 pm

These are the reasons I posted this. I think that it will only make things more difficult for those who are law abiding citizens. The ability to own a firearm was put in the constitution for a reason. There are no stipulations or hoops to jump through either.

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 9th, 2009, 9:54 pm

"RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" PERIOD!
I don't understand how people think this is up for interpretation!

MICK · Post by **MICK** » July 18th, 2009, 7:24 am

dannygraves wrote:"RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" PERIOD!
I don't understand how people think this is up for interpretation!

Your girl Sotomeyor(?) beleives that right only applies to folks like me and NOT you Danny

Can you beleive that?!?! Yeah I'm real sure the founding fathers meant the right to bear arms only pertained to the government and it's affiliates...the people were to have no such privilege. That bitch is fucking crazy

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 18th, 2009, 11:56 am

I had someone argue this w/ me recently and say that it was meant for private malishas only. To that my responce was "yeah, now tell me if our government goes ape shit and we have to form private malishias, then how are we supposed to get guns"? It is our right to form a malishia with the guns we legally purchased with our 2nd ammendment rights some time prior to shit hitting the fan!

MICK · Post by **MICK** » July 18th, 2009, 2:56 pm

EXACTLY

NightBiker07 · Post by **NightBiker07** » July 19th, 2009, 6:58 pm

dannygraves wrote:I had someone argue this w/ me recently and say that it was meant for private malishas only. To that my responce was "yeah, now tell me if our government goes ape shit and we have to form private malishias, then how are we supposed to get guns"? It is our right to form a malishia with the guns we legally purchased with our 2nd ammendment rights some time prior to shit hitting the fan!

and i bet that clown still didnt see the light......

CR500R7 · Post by **CR500R7** » July 20th, 2009, 12:29 am

That was well written Danny, and completely accurate.
I know your head is screwed on, and not planted firmly up your ass.
We need more people to think like you.

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 20th, 2009, 11:42 am

thx, but its all logic... those left wing crazies completely lack common sense and for some reason they strugle to "interpret" what our founding fathers wrote and some claim it is "out of date", since when do legal rights go "out of date"

Post by **MojoScojo** » July 20th, 2009, 12:13 pm

dannygraves wrote:common sense

oxymoron.

I have no idea why it is "common" sense when it is so rare.

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 20th, 2009, 12:50 pm

CR500R7 · Post by **CR500R7** » July 21st, 2009, 1:44 am

MojoScojo you are right, if it was common sense there would be no stupid people in the world.
legal rights go "out of date" Yeah sure.
BE F@#KEN REAL! MORONS.
These are the type of people you don't want to rewrite your constitution.

What a stuff up that would be, kiss goodbye anything you enjoy.

2strokes4ever · Post by **2strokes4ever** » July 21st, 2009, 3:27 am

global dictatorship must be on someones agenda

NightBiker07 · Post by **NightBiker07** » July 21st, 2009, 8:57 pm

2strokes4ever wrote:global dictatorship must be on someones agenda

never would have guessed

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 21st, 2009, 9:06 pm

step 1 take away their money, posessions and maybe even their homes to make them dependent on the gov. (hhhmmmm)
step 2 take away their ability to defent themselves and/or be defiant. (hhhmmmmm)
these are starting to sound a lot like whats been going on.....

CR500R7 · Post by **CR500R7** » July 22nd, 2009, 12:33 am

2strokes4ever · Post by **2strokes4ever** » July 22nd, 2009, 2:40 am

In my opinion this recession is purpose built, it will profit the banks, the banks with keep giving orders to our puppet leaders, all for what......
"ABSOLUTE CONTROL". The best way to control the people is to get the people to fight each other.....Divide and conquer.....Just wait until all of our newborn children are micro chipped......YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF SOME QUESTIONS DONT YOU

dont people get killed for saying this stuff

CR500R7 · Post by **CR500R7** » July 22nd, 2009, 3:02 am

The NEW WORLD ORDER!

Tayler89 · Post by **Tayler89** » July 22nd, 2009, 7:41 am

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104674

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 22nd, 2009, 8:06 am

sounds like tennesse knows whats up and the fed gov is taking a big dump on their heads

tell me, whats wrong with some hill billies making guns and selling them to their hill billy friends? Sounmds like the american way to me

MICK · Post by **MICK** » July 22nd, 2009, 3:35 pm

What bothers me about that is...this is the UNITED STATES of America! A country made up of 50 free thinking independant communities. The federal government isn't supposed to order States what to do, it's supposed to help each free thinking state as best it can. If it doesn't like what a particular State is doing, it can simply choose not to support. But DC should by no means have the authority to tell Tennessee it CAN'T do something...a significant war in our country's history began with shit like this. Keep it up omama. Tinder set, ambers smoking...lets go ahead and throw some fuel on this mother fucker

dannygraves · Post by **dannygraves** » July 22nd, 2009, 5:07 pm

I wonder what the 21st century rebel flag will look like

NightBiker07 · Post by **NightBiker07** » July 22nd, 2009, 10:32 pm

dannygraves wrote:I wonder what the 21st century rebel flag will look like

dunno, but you can bet your ass ill carry one!

BannedCR500Riders.com

HR 45 Blair Holt (Gun Control Bill)

HR 45 Blair Holt (Gun Control Bill)