You all need to be aware of this.

[3000lbchicken]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45

Forwarded to me:

One of the things that has set the United States apart from
other nations is our freedom to own firearms. That is about to change!

Are you ready to give up your freedom and become become "a
subject"??

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45
introduced into
the House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act
of 2009.

We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio
program.

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is
flying under the
radar.

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.

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

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.

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.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your
pick of many
options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more
people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any
hunters in
your family - pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on
KHOW 630 a.m.
in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to
tell all
your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he
suggests
we all
join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association,
hunting
associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.

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.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use
against me. HR
45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for
26
years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in
less
danger from their victims.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

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

 

[RebelBruiser]

The problem I see with any resolution to either ban guns or further restrict them is that the people who typically cause the most problems with guns are the ones that have unregistered guns anyway. So, cracking down on firearms really doesn't hit the majority of those that use firearms for criminal activity.

 

[rugbdawg]

to go. For Christ's sake, it's a BILL. And...as long as nothing in the final bill costs me or anyone else any extra money to own a gun, I'm fine with it. Some of you think that just because something is a Constitutional right means the government can't regulate it. That's ridiculous.

I see nothing wrong with the first four provisions:

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

1. It is registered

2. You are fingerprinted

3. You supply a current Driver's License

4. You supply your Social Security #

Now, there is going to be some liberal out there making the argument that the driver's license and social security requirement is unconstitutional...but I'm cool with it. By the way, no way in hell this passes.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

as Jack Bauer does of being gay.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

No, I don't have a problem with some of this, but after enough of this, then... BAM what happened?

 

[3000lbchicken]

1. Your gun is registered, so they know where to go when they decide to take them up.

2. I have to go for a mental eval. at any time?

3. Gives them another right to enter your home without cause.

4. Yeah, it may not pass, but only if you know about this bill and it doesn't fly under the radar. You're welcome.

 

[3000lbchicken]

.

 

[llmsudawg]

it'll never pass.

 

[rexxx]

you don't have a problem with getting fingerprinted to own a gun? I am sure the ******* that breaks into your house will go thru the proper channels to buy a gun. It is amazing how stupid people in this country have become. When did so many people become alright with losing rights?

 

[biguglyjoe]

Why make it harder on the law abiding citizen. We should learn from Australia's mistakes.

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.</p>

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.</p>

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:</p>

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.

Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.</p>

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.</p>

According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."</p>

And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.</p>

Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."</p>

Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"</p>

Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."</p>

Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.</p>

Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.</p>

"By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.</p>

Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.</p>

"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."</p>

Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.</p>

"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.</p>

Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.</p>

"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."</p>

In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. <span style="font-weight: bold;">According to Yale University researcher</span> John R. Lott, <span style="font-weight: bold;">formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.</span></p>

Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.</p>

The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.</p>

"Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."</p>

Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."</p>

In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.</p>

Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.</p>

 

[1984Dawg]

nm.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

.

 

[msudogsrule01]

Anything that has a sole purpose of killing something that is alive should be hard to get. Sorry, I guess most would disagree, but that is the way I see it.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Hide e'm we'll!

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

"1. It is registered

2. You are fingerprinted

3. You supply a current Driver's License

4. You supply your Social Security # "

If they will make people have to go through the same things to legally vote and legally drive a car.

Only fair...

 

[xxxWalkTheDawg]

Anything that has a sole purpose of killing something that is alive should be hard to get. Sorry, I guess most would disagree, but that is the way I see it.

It doesn't make them harder to get. It only clogs one channel. But there are several more

Have you seen the crime rates in D.C even with their tough laws in the past? If they banned all weapons tomorrow I could run right to the bank and get the funds to buy a fully automatic AK-47 from an individual if he would sell it. Now if good ole John Doe Bulldog fan here could do it... you think it may be pretty easy for someone that is fully involved in crime to get one?

There is where all the gun control arguements fall flat on their face. And it doesn't work.

 

[El Diablo Blanco]

unless they try to take it away.