?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Josh-D. S. Davis

Xaminmo / Omnimax / Max Omni / Mad Scientist / Midnight Shadow / Radiation Master

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Josh 201604 KWP
joshdavis
I'm relatively unhappy about this:
* http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

Verified at:
* http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Basically this would make it illegal to own a rifle with a clip or any pistol unless:
* It is registered
* You are fingerprinted
* Your supply a current Driver's License
* You supply your Social Security #
* You will submit to a physical & mental eval at any time
* Each change of ownership through must be reported and costs $25

Failure to do so means:
* You automatically lose the right to own a firearm
* You are subject up to a year in jail.

Federal gun storage inspection at any time to verify locked AND inaccessible to anyone under 18.

Failure of gun storage inspection means a fine plus up to 5 years in prison.

Update v2
I think this hardcore tracking is a little spooky.

Looking into the second amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say I have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms, nor does it define how formal the militia must be, but it does state that it should be well regulated, except to the point of infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms.

This definitely infringes on the right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Also, the commerce clause states, "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

This bill specifically claims intrastate commerce rights, which are constitutionally reserved by the states. Firearms are traditionally only covered by the commerce clause when traded across state lines. Trading across state lines would not taint the firearm as always being regulated by the federal government. Only the specific transactions related to the interstate trade would be constitutionally regulated by the federal government.

Finally, the necessary powers clause states, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This bill does is neither necessary nor proper for the execution of the powers vested by the Constitution.
    I think a viable alternative would be to simply criminalize transferring possession or ownership of a firearm:
  • to a person who is not a citizen or naturalized citizen without an international firearm sales license
  • to a person who may be reasonably expected to commit a crime using that firearm
  • to improperly store your firearms such that a minor might reasonably be expected to obtain unsupervised access

The problem is that some people seem to be pushing for a unitary government, rather than a federation with confederation leanings. These people are usually one of two groups: Those with very little experience outside of a small realm of influence, or those who stand to gain further power by the changes. Not entirely. Some people just like to control others, or are socialist enough to think that everyone is the same and should want the same things.

TX and Florida will both be very much against this, but I'm not sure about the other states. California would probably would vote in favor of this.

*sigh* I'm really tired of people trying to take away my rights "for my own good". I want the fed to protect my borders, handle a common currency, help ensure stable transportation and communication, and be funded by the states. I don't like the IRS, nor many of the hundreds of other agencies glommed on to the federal government.

I think many of these should be separate entities to which states have a choice over whether to subscribe to their services or not.

Though, I subscribe to a strong federalization, almost to the point of sovereign states, but not quite enough to be a confederation.

I'm probably just a nut and should bow to my wonderful overlords who love me very much and only want to take all of my money and subvert any drive for creativity or technological growth. It's best for everyone. Really.

I should be asleep.


  • 1
Honestly, government in nearly any form is a little spooky.


Gun control is necessary
but I agree this is going a bit above and beyond.

Yaya. I mean, I don't subscribe to anarchy, because individuals, can only self regulate some of the time, but I do lean towards less is more.

Regulating guns is OK to a point; however, even what's in place now is questionable.

I know that I grew up knowing that, if you decided to go into someone else's house without permission, you MIGHT get shot. Period. TX is #14 for gun crimes, but #2 by population (getting 3 more reps/electors in 2010). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

I think gun safety should be taught in high-school, small classes. Idiots with guns are almost as dangerous as criminals with guns. You can regulate guns away and prevent idiots from having them, but not criminals. If the criminals are armed, I'd like to be armed.

rant rant rant.

I even updated the post.

*sigh*

Anyway, not anti-government. I like the protection it affords, but I'd like to reserve more of my constitutionally reserved rights, and maybe spend a little less on fun projects that I didn't get to choose.

Things like this are why I didn't want to vote for Obama. But sadly, a large percentage of his most vocal supporters tell the world that all people who didn't vote for him are racist rednecks who hate teh gays. :(

You mean, Obama's a gay redneck?

(Deleted comment)
Single-shot rifles are not suitable for hunting. A 5-7 shot clip is pretty standard. This is not a warrior weapon.

Even so, hunting isn't protected by the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is protected, on the basis of being able to form a "well regulated militia", but not as a dependency.

So, I die, my kids inherit the guns, don't know to file, or even what's there, and a year later are found in violation, go to jail, and lose the right to buy weapons.

And yah, shotguns are always t3h awesome and meet most exceptions. They are my love.

its not gonna pass

Obama has been pretty clear on things that Guns are not on his Radar. Gun control legislation is just my stupid liberal brothers being surly while drunk. The rest of us will simply take him home and put him to bed.

The only people who actually really take this seriously are: the authors of the bill, and ultra-conservatives who are just CONVINCED its the underlying purpose of the current congress and administration (it's so not its painful).

2nd amendment concerns considered, I think guns ARE dangerous enough that we need to have cursory licensing of PEOPLE to use them. I dont agree with registration, I think only base level registration (maybe even less than we have now) is ok, but licensing of people to USE them is paramount. Picture ID obtained from a firearms safety class (as well as psychological and judicial records review). If a car is adeadly weapon and we license car use , then we need to actually license intentional weapons (for the same reason)


Re: its not gonna pass

I'm pretty much ok with this. Good wording sir.

  • 1