HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm/Licensing/Sales Act of 2009 - Zilvia.net Forums | Nissan 240SX (Silvia) and Z (Fairlady) Car Forum

Sleepy240 · 10-18-2009, 01:10 PM

I was not sure if anybody else had read about this, my father of all people e-mailed it to me I found it very interesting. Personally I do not own a firearm but I have no issues with those who do or the ones who just "want to bear arms" because it is their legal right.

For the full read
HR 45 Bill Text

For those who really do not want to read some cliffs...

It will become illegal to own a firearm (any Rifle with a clip or ANY pistol for that matter), Unless the following is done:

1) It is registered
2) You are fingerprinted, and are able to provide a valid drivers license and a valid social security number
3) You submit to a physical and mental evaluation at anytime of "their" choosing (the government)
4) Each update for the weapon (change of ownership) whether private or at public sale must be reported at a cost of $25
- Failure of the above results in the automatic suspension of the right to own a firearm and are subject to up to one year in prison
5) Child safety provision which states that the gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. "They" have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from the accessibility to children at anytime.
- Failure to comply results in the automatic supsension of the right to own a firearm and are subject to up to five years in prison.

ayuaddict · 10-18-2009, 01:23 PM

sounds just like owning and operating a car.

**ThatGuy** · 10-18-2009, 01:30 PM

I don't really see a problem with it. Though the process for registering the weapons already in people's possessions might be difficult. Especially the private collectors out there that have rather extensive vaults of weapons.

I do feel there should be restrictions on the types of rounds that are available, but not necessarily the amount of rounds you own. For example, flachette, fragmantation, and explosive rounds that are currently on the market, SHOULDN'T BE.

Sleepy240 · 10-18-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

For example, flachette, fragmantation, and explosive rounds that are currently on the market, SHOULDN'T BE.

I think this is the most ridiculous thing how they allow ammuntions like those for people who really have no purpose for them. I agree that some restrictions are definitely good. I also heard about them changing firearms licenses to be very similiar to a drivers license with a specific number for each individual, a picture of the person and other details on the license.

Genovese.Jr · 10-18-2009, 01:43 PM

that wont work guns will alwase end up in the wrong hands eatherway

sidewaysil80 · 10-18-2009, 02:05 PM

really the ONLY diff between whats proposed and what is now is the fingerprinting and physical/mental eval. so really, i dont see a big deal.

Matej · 10-18-2009, 02:13 PM

Sounds good to me. I like the physical & mental evaluation part.

S14_Kouki · 10-18-2009, 05:40 PM

Really a physical evaluation. Are they going to make you run a obstacle coures or the physical at the doctor. Why does it matter what physical shape you are in?? Add to this I know its not going to be free for the mental/physical test so is the government going to pay?? In return they will up the tax's

**ThatGuy** · 10-18-2009, 05:48 PM

It is spelled course. Obstacle Course.

Second, an 85 year old woman that has problems even lifting her handbag, doesn't need to buy a Desert Eagle .50, or even a nice 12 gauge shotgun, to break her shoulder with the first time she fires it.

There is your justification for the Physical Exam.

drftmark · 10-18-2009, 06:27 PM

The scariest and most concerning part to me is that if you own a gun, you basically waive your right for a search warrant and they can just come in to your house at anytime to "check" your gun is secured.

They should not pass this, if ANYTHING, take some of the intense rounds that ThatGuy said out of the public market.

S14_Kouki · 10-18-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

It is spelled course. Obstacle Course.

Second, an 85 year old woman that has problems even lifting her handbag, doesn't need to buy a Desert Eagle .50, or even a nice 12 gauge shotgun, to break her shoulder with the first time she fires it.

There is your justification for the Physical Exam.

Sorry Sorry spell check did not catch it. Blame my spell check.

So does the physical tell you what size gun you can/cant own??? Cause what if the 85 year old woman wants a mini22 or a Colt Junior .25?? What about old ppl that have guns in poor physical or mental health do they get grandfathered in or does everyone have to take the test even if you are ready have a gun.

GSXRJJordan · 10-18-2009, 07:03 PM

This really isn't that much of a change in gun control policy from where CA is at right now. We currently have fingerprinting/background checks/basic coursework/in-person class and a mental segment somewhere, I don't recall how in depth it is. Kind of a "common-sense" law, although I'm basically opposed to stricter laws (would prefer stricter enforcement of existing laws).

Quote:

Originally Posted by S14_Kouki

Really a physical evaluation. Are they going to make you run a obstacle coures or the physical at the doctor. Why does it matter what physical shape you are in?? Add to this I know its not going to be free for the mental/physical test so is the government going to pay?? In return they will up the tax's

Barry has a good point on the physical, and in CA we take care of that aspect with the in-person training course. If you can't safely operate the weapon and hit the target 7ft-10ft away, you don't pass, period. Women have much more trouble with this, obviously.

In CA, the permit applicant pays all fees, so the cost of getting a permit would rise, not taxes.

Matej · 10-18-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drftmark

The scariest and most concerning part to me is that if you own a gun, you basically waive your right for a search warrant and they can just come in to your house at anytime to "check" your gun is secured.

Pretty sure they will not just randomly kick in your door to check your gun.

S14_Kouki · 10-18-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSXRJJordan

Barry has a good point on the physical, and in CA we take care of that aspect with the in-person training course. If you can't safely operate the weapon and hit the target 7ft-10ft away, you don't pass, period. Women have much more trouble with this, obviously.

In CA, the permit applicant pays all fees, so the cost of getting a permit would rise, not taxes.

This CA test is the same way that they do the test in FL. But do you have to take the test with the gun they provide? What about the ppl that already own guns do they have to take the NEW test??

Ares240SX · 10-18-2009, 08:05 PM

What most people don't understand is this is how it works. They start with one right, and slowly erode the rest away. This will turn into nothing but a way for the government to confiscate firearms, think New Orleans when the illegal search and seizure order was given, there are still lawsuits pending against the state for that debacle. Also, IT DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIMINALS FROM GETTING THEM. NOTHING. The ONLY people it affects is law abiding citizens. What needs to happen is PROPER firearm training for everyone, whether they plan to own a firearm or not, and ENFORCEMENT of the CURRENT laws on the books. Pretty much everything that could possibly be covered is covered by current federal and state laws. Including the stupid "gun show loophole", IF a CRIMINAL goes in and buys a gun from a vendor or person walking around (some states allow face to face sales) without PROPER ID, background check and CCW than BOTH of those people are CRIMINALS. When I lived in NC, NO ONE would do a private face to face sale without PROPER ID and a legit signed and current CCW/CCH permit.

SexPanda · 10-18-2009, 11:26 PM

Well, I can understand some of that... But I doubt this will be the final draft of the bill. The Supreme Court has already ruled that gun ownership is a right, but one of those "if you deserve it" rights, like voting. Felons can't vote, nor can they own weapons... i can't remember if thats only for a violent crime, or what... Meh.

Anyhow, the provision about allowing the government to come and check to see your weapons are put away correctly with gun locks and what not... I don't see that lasting.

Either way, I don't care. When the zambies attack, all of this won't matter.

ryguy · 10-18-2009, 11:47 PM

This is the kind of shit the federal government should leave to the states.

SexPanda · 10-18-2009, 11:48 PM

^^^ I am a huge supporter of state's rights. I think the Federal Government has FAR too much power over the states these days. Its the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not just America

turbointl · 10-23-2009, 08:59 PM

I totally agree. Its getting ridiculous, but there are restrictions on what kinds of rounds are available. Let's be honest, alot of gun ownership is the fun of shooting. It could be cowboy action to the more tactical kind of games, but ultimately it is a game. I have a ccp and had to do alot of the things mentioned in the bill already. It's understandable but kind of a slippery slope, and its really not that difficult to get illegal firearms, look for the nearest crackhead that looks like he is jonesing, I'm sure he has a stolen one. Its well intentioned at first

Quote:

Originally Posted by SexPanda

^^^ I am a huge supporter of state's rights. I think the Federal Government has FAR too much power over the states these days. Its the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not just America

10-18-2009, 01:10 PM	#1
Sleepy240 Zilvia Addict Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Reading, PA Age: 35 Posts: 780 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm/Licensing/Sales Act of 2009 I was not sure if anybody else had read about this, my father of all people e-mailed it to me I found it very interesting. Personally I do not own a firearm but I have no issues with those who do or the ones who just "want to bear arms" because it is their legal right. For the full read HR 45 Bill Text For those who really do not want to read some cliffs... It will become illegal to own a firearm (any Rifle with a clip or ANY pistol for that matter), Unless the following is done: 1) It is registered 2) You are fingerprinted, and are able to provide a valid drivers license and a valid social security number 3) You submit to a physical and mental evaluation at anytime of "their" choosing (the government) 4) Each update for the weapon (change of ownership) whether private or at public sale must be reported at a cost of $25 - Failure of the above results in the automatic suspension of the right to own a firearm and are subject to up to one year in prison 5) Child safety provision which states that the gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. "They" have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from the accessibility to children at anytime. - Failure to comply results in the automatic supsension of the right to own a firearm and are subject to up to five years in prison. __________________ Been awhile...

10-18-2009, 01:30 PM	#3
ThatGuy Admin Asshole Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Retired Age: 41 Posts: 20,394 Trader Rating: (0) Rides Gallery: ThatGuy Feedback Score: 0 reviews	I don't really see a problem with it. Though the process for registering the weapons already in people's possessions might be difficult. Especially the private collectors out there that have rather extensive vaults of weapons. I do feel there should be restrictions on the types of rounds that are available, but not necessarily the amount of rounds you own. For example, flachette, fragmantation, and explosive rounds that are currently on the market, SHOULDN'T BE. __________________ "Speak softly,..." -Pres. Teddy Roosevelt "Be polite, be professional, ..." -Gen. James Mattis

10-18-2009, 05:40 PM	#8
S14_Kouki Nissanaholic! Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: TPA Posts: 1,947 Trader Rating: (4) Feedback Score: 4 reviews	Really a physical evaluation. Are they going to make you run a obstacle coures or the physical at the doctor. Why does it matter what physical shape you are in?? Add to this I know its not going to be free for the mental/physical test so is the government going to pay?? In return they will up the tax's __________________ http://www.fabthis.com http://www.childhoodproductions.com/dbfab/store.html

10-18-2009, 05:48 PM	#9
ThatGuy Admin Asshole Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Retired Age: 41 Posts: 20,394 Trader Rating: (0) Rides Gallery: ThatGuy Feedback Score: 0 reviews	It is spelled course. Obstacle Course. Second, an 85 year old woman that has problems even lifting her handbag, doesn't need to buy a Desert Eagle .50, or even a nice 12 gauge shotgun, to break her shoulder with the first time she fires it. There is your justification for the Physical Exam. __________________ "Speak softly,..." -Pres. Teddy Roosevelt "Be polite, be professional, ..." -Gen. James Mattis

10-18-2009, 11:26 PM	#16
SexPanda Post Whore! Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Where ever there is free beer Posts: 3,239 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	Well, I can understand some of that... But I doubt this will be the final draft of the bill. The Supreme Court has already ruled that gun ownership is a right, but one of those "if you deserve it" rights, like voting. Felons can't vote, nor can they own weapons... i can't remember if thats only for a violent crime, or what... Meh. Anyhow, the provision about allowing the government to come and check to see your weapons are put away correctly with gun locks and what not... I don't see that lasting. Either way, I don't care. When the zambies attack, all of this won't matter. __________________ BRAND NEW GReddy PRofec E-01 EBC for sale, Cheap!

10-18-2009, 01:23 PM	#2
ayuaddict Post Whore! Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Socal Age: 32 Posts: 4,017 Trader Rating: (9) Feedback Score: 9 reviews	sounds just like owning and operating a car.

10-18-2009, 01:43 PM	#5
Genovese.Jr BANNED Join Date: May 2009 Location: oc Posts: 296 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	that wont work guns will alwase end up in the wrong hands eatherway

10-18-2009, 02:05 PM	#6
sidewaysil80 Nissanaholic! Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: NoVA Age: 35 Posts: 1,710 Trader Rating: (23) Feedback Score: 23 reviews	really the ONLY diff between whats proposed and what is now is the fingerprinting and physical/mental eval. so really, i dont see a big deal.

10-18-2009, 02:13 PM	#7
Matej Post Whore! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: N/A Posts: 9,423 Trader Rating: (39) Feedback Score: 39 reviews	Sounds good to me. I like the physical & mental evaluation part.

10-18-2009, 06:27 PM	#10
drftmark Zilvia Junkie Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: tx Posts: 524 Trader Rating: (5) Feedback Score: 5 reviews	The scariest and most concerning part to me is that if you own a gun, you basically waive your right for a search warrant and they can just come in to your house at anytime to "check" your gun is secured. They should not pass this, if ANYTHING, take some of the intense rounds that ThatGuy said out of the public market.

10-18-2009, 08:05 PM	#15
Ares240SX Leaky Injector Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nor Cal Age: 37 Posts: 141 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	What most people don't understand is this is how it works. They start with one right, and slowly erode the rest away. This will turn into nothing but a way for the government to confiscate firearms, think New Orleans when the illegal search and seizure order was given, there are still lawsuits pending against the state for that debacle. Also, IT DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIMINALS FROM GETTING THEM. NOTHING. The ONLY people it affects is law abiding citizens. What needs to happen is PROPER firearm training for everyone, whether they plan to own a firearm or not, and ENFORCEMENT of the CURRENT laws on the books. Pretty much everything that could possibly be covered is covered by current federal and state laws. Including the stupid "gun show loophole", IF a CRIMINAL goes in and buys a gun from a vendor or person walking around (some states allow face to face sales) without PROPER ID, background check and CCW than BOTH of those people are CRIMINALS. When I lived in NC, NO ONE would do a private face to face sale without PROPER ID and a legit signed and current CCW/CCH permit.

10-18-2009, 11:47 PM	#17
ryguy Zilvia FREAK! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago Suburbs Age: 32 Posts: 1,544 Trader Rating: (5) Feedback Score: 5 reviews	This is the kind of shit the federal government should leave to the states. __________________

10-18-2009, 11:48 PM	#18
SexPanda Post Whore! Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Where ever there is free beer Posts: 3,239 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	^^^ I am a huge supporter of state's rights. I think the Federal Government has FAR too much power over the states these days. Its the UNITED *STATES* OF AMERICA, not just America __________________ BRAND NEW GReddy PRofec E-01 EBC for sale, Cheap!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode