Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Also known as HR45: Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009

You can track the bill's progress here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

If passed this amendment would require licensure for gun ownership, tax each gun and charge a fee for sales, and require fingerprints for licensure. The bill is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986, which means that the Finance Committee can pass it without the Senate voting on it. Gun owners see any regulation as a step toward confiscation. I am not sure I agree with them. You can decide for yourself. I am interested in your thoughts.


Confirmed on snopes.com - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

HR45 Gun Owners Watch Out

Concerning the Blair-Holt proposed legislation: Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.

In November, our president promised he was not going after our Second Amendment rights. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov// <http://www.senate.gov//> <http://www.senate.gov/>> You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.

You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.

Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply. It has started. 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. Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45or 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 of 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.

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.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h.r.45> :

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA, whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or not. YOUR rights are next. Government is taking away our right to choose, as well as the right to defend ourselves from intruders.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 18th, 2009 06:22 pm (UTC)
Didn't read the actual bill because i'm at work but:

I don't think this is part of an organized campaign to take away the right to bear arms, yet I still find it very ridiculous. $50 per gun per year is an astronomical fee when you consider that some people own antique guns and/or guns for display, and gun collections are often passed down as parts of estates. It seems that what they are trying to do with an annual tax is make gun ownership undesirable and therefore reduce the number of guns owned. Presumably this is in response to the high level of gun violence in the USA.

However, this fails for several reasons.
1) If a person owns multiple guns for show or as part of a collection, these guns are not being used and are not a threat because
2) It only takes one gun to kill someone. So I don't see how a per gun tax makes any sense. We're taxed to death as it is. If they're looking for someone new to tax they should just legalize pot.
3) Gun violence is often committed using stolen and/or otherwise illegal guns. (smuggled, unregistered, serial numbers rubbed off) All this proposed bill will do is encourage normal people who have never been involved in illegal arms dealing to break more laws and become involved in a very dangerous activity.

There are so many unanswered questions. What if your gun gets stolen? What if you no longer want your guns and can't afford the tax, but can't find a seller right away? And i'm not necessarily opposed to any kind of gun law reform, but this is particularly Big Brother-esque and way off the mark.
Aug. 18th, 2009 06:41 pm (UTC)
Your assessment sounds right on to me. I don't think the $50/gun/year is going to fly. If the law passes, there will be rampant disobedience, just like there is with marijuana.

I am actually sympathetic to the idea of limiting gun ownership. I have many friends from Europe who think we are absolutely nuts to have guns in the hands of anyone with cash. It's just too late, here in America. The cat is out of the bag, and isn't going back in until it's wearing cement boots.

Do you have an idea what sort of laws would be best with regard to private gun ownership? How can we allow for the American assumed right to bear arms and also reduce accidental and violent death by shooting?
Aug. 18th, 2009 06:59 pm (UTC)
Exactly. Only rampant disobedience is far more dangerous when guns are involved. :/

I support the right to bear arms in part because it is too late, as you said, to undo it. Any attempts are going to cause more of mess than leaving it along would. However, that doesn't mean we can't restrict new gun technology. For example, there is no reason why we should allow civillians to own fully automatic weapons. They have no practical hunting or defensive use outside of a combat/military situation. I would support scaling back gun ownership rights to either ban or restrict ownership of fully automatics.

To reduce accidental death, the best course of action might be to require some sort of training class and/or safety program for all new gun owners, sort of how we have to take a written test and a road test before we are allowed to drive cars. Guns are like cars. Not as dangerous in the hands of a well-meaning pro, very dangerous in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

To reduce violent death, probably attack the root of the violence rather than chopping at the leaves. Drugs are a biggie. Street dealing has turned low income neighborhoods into warzones in some cities, and street dealing takes place because it is the "safest" way to deal and buy if you are trying to avoid getting caught. The messed up part is that most of the time the arrests of street dealers and drug users doesn't impact the actual dealer running the drug ring at all. So the deaths and prison sentences just keep piling up. Yes, I think legalization of at least some drugs would be a good place to start.

There's probably a certain amount of accidental and violent death that will never be prevented, nor would it be prevented by banning or severaly restricting legal ownership of guns.
Aug. 18th, 2009 07:07 pm (UTC)
Thanks.....good food for thought.
Aug. 18th, 2009 08:17 pm (UTC)
...nah, I find it alarmist BS: we used to own guns, and my partner at the time worked for a gun dealer, and really, OF COURSE it makes sense to have the usual felony check and registration and all that...*shrug*...just like the big fuss about semi-automatics and machine guns being 'basic rights', when really they SUCK at hunting and anything other than bigtime destruction...they're even too costly to fire at a range...
Aug. 19th, 2009 02:19 am (UTC)
vestiges of old...
when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, times were different. And probably times were the same. What they didn't have was an AR15 assault rifle. It's quite different than what they had. I struggle to find empathy with folks who strike a hard line about, "don't touch my right to own a gun."

Right? Hmmmm. Responsibility? Yes. Is it responsible in Arizona to bring an AR15 out in public view outside of an Obama event? Hmmmm? Legal, probably. But to me disturbing.

George W./Rove/Cheney left us with a very divided country. We are still paying for their twisted legacy. I feel sad when I see or experience this division.
Aug. 19th, 2009 06:20 am (UTC)
Re: vestiges of old...
Yeah. What passes for debate anymore is just a big shouting match, with the best ads winning over the dullest minds and the thinkers left without a country.
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 20th, 2009 06:12 pm (UTC)
Good point. I can understand the government wanting identification on those who own firearms, but I'm not sure it's a necessity. Linking it to automobile usage is ridiculous. Soon I will be one of those people who does not own a car. I look at it as a kind of freedom.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars