"Blair's Bill" - National registry/licensing


PDA






Cellar Dweller
June 10, 2007, 07:53 PM
OK, just saw this on ABC7Chicago (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5381858).Sunday, Congressman Bobby Rush will introduce 'Blair's Bill,' which is aimed at creating a uniform system for purchasing certain firearms. The bill is named after Blair Holt, the Chicago teen who was shot to death last month on board a CTA bus.



Rush proposed a national registry of firearms and national "possessor" licensing (including mandatory gun safety training of some sort), comparing it to a driver's license and car registrations. Since one can own any type of motor vehicle AND since one can drive it anywhere, including government-owned land or parking it on government-owned property, or, for that matter, one can drive/park onto private employer property...OK, instead of fighting it, how about amending it when it is submitted to include:

1. Scrapping NFA '34 and the bad parts of FOPA '86, since all firearms will be registered anyway. Select-fire, SBS/SBR, AOW, suppressors, attachment of a shoulder stock to a pistol, etc. No taxes or additional fees, no limitations, all state and local rules to the contrary get struck down. New MGs can be purchased by anyone.
2. CCW AND open carry in all 50 states, no government-regulated Criminal Empowerment Zones. Private employers CAN restrict carrying in the workplace but CANNOT restrict leaving weapons in the vehicle - but are liable for break-ins and theft.
3. Training at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time - no "Government Facility that has a 20 year waiting list, takes 2000 hours and costs $10k, plus $5k per weapon or attachment, yearly training and yearly fees." Basically, using average or mean existing CCW qualifiers. I'm not gonna lose sleep over whether it should be 35 hours, 40 hours or 41.647 hours, and cost $50/5 years, $40/4 years, or $50/4years.

Embrace it with amendments, then publicly chide the hoplophobes why they are not rushing to pass this important legislation to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. After all, they're only anti-gun-violence, not anti-gun.

Oh yeah, 300+ million guns and what, 100+ million lawful owners? Ya think the registry might just collapse under all that weight? :evil: Show them that to save money, register owners instead. IL and NJ already have FOID, some states have handgun permits, and isn't CCW a "government license" already? Would you openly acknowledge that you're a gunowner (as opposed to making the gov't work for it) in exchange for new goodies AND striking down most of the "20,000 gun laws" already on the books?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Blair's Bill" - National registry/licensing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wjustinen
June 10, 2007, 08:07 PM
Show them that to save money, register owners instead.

We did that in Canada circa 1978. Firearms Aquisition Certificate. It didn't do anything to prevent introduction of the "long gun registry."

For what it is worth 2A says "shall not be infringed." Insist on NO INFRINGEMENTS. In every battle, every compromise should be a move closer to the ideal. Never accept a move that causes more infringement.

TallPine
June 10, 2007, 08:22 PM
Two words: massive non-compliance

;)

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 08:23 PM
Registration on a federal level is a violation of the FOPA. Wont pass, and will go nowhere like HR1022 or Dennis the Menaces handgun ban. AWB are a touchy area enough.

Prince Yamato
June 10, 2007, 08:28 PM
How about instead of showing them a national gun ID card, I just show them my middle finger. The extended digit is straight and representative of a gun barrel. It means that I own a firearm. Anyone who gives a similar sign to a national firearms registry is signaling to the authorities that they too are in possession of a firearm. I think message will be clear to all authorities.

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 08:32 PM
How about instead of showing them a national gun ID card, I just show them my middle finger

I totally agree. If even California doesnt have a FOID, what makes him think the rest of the country will go the way of IL? It wont.

Prince Yamato
June 10, 2007, 08:56 PM
The thing with bills like this is that they sound good on paper. "Oh, we'll all register our guns, crime will go down." The trouble is, from just a pure practical standpoint is that the implentation of registration would be too expensive. Big city liberals tend to think that gun owners number in the 100,000s. Just a couple small bubbas in the South with a mossy oak 12 gauge and a couple grandpas with Garrands up north. Figure 150 million gun owners in America, average of 5 guns per gun owner... 750 MILLION firearms to register. Probably more than that. I'd bet the number floats in the billions if you count guns not yet sold (and to be registered by dealers or manufacturers.). It would cost probably a hundred billion dollars or more to register everything. Figure national (tax-payer funded of course!) ad campaigns to inform everyone that their guns needed to be registered. There'd have to be a year-long amnesty. Employees hired to register the guns... couple that with people hired on low wages and who probably would enter things wrong. Don't forget lawsuits AFTER the registration for weapons that people thought were registered but were not. Investigations into criminal activity... How about we save the cash and just arrest the damn criminals. Since liberals tend to get all their info from movies, they all need to watch "Minority Report". Pre-crime units don't work!

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 09:05 PM
I am a paranoid type, and even I believe this wont go anywhere.

SaMx
June 10, 2007, 09:06 PM
prince, your number is over twice as big as the real number. 250-300 million guns and about 80-100 million gun owners. The average gun owner has 3 guns.

But in the end, what does a registry give you? You get a great big list of people who are allowed to own guns. AKA a big list of people who aren't likely to ever hurt anyone. Even if you can put the list together it's pretty useless. We can already trace who bought what gun, that's why you have the model and serial number on the 4437.

Caimlas
June 11, 2007, 12:13 AM
I don't know what FOPA is, but I know it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If you have to register something (probably before taking it home or a f2f purchase), then you don't have a right to it. You are being allowed it.


Oh yeah, 300+ million guns and what, 100+ million lawful owners? Ya think the registry might just collapse under all that weight?

It might. But probably not. Our government isn't as half-arsed as California's when it comes to large databases and information management.
We most certainly have more cars and drivers than we do gun owners in this country, and we've got more people in the Social Security database than either. Even if there are 500 million guns in the country, it would still be possible: they would simply do the registration per-state, and of course that works out to make things easier for them (the more populated states are, in general, the ones with fewer per-capita firearm owners). Credit card companies? Yeah, there is that much information being collected and kept by multiple state and federal agencies, as well as private interests, already.

And as for Canada's firearm registry? The reason that never worked is because they didn't do it the right way. For one thing, the database backend they used was Microsoft Access, which isn't "enterprise" level database server.

In short, universal firearm registration is quite possible. The technology is available for a police officer to be able to pull up pictures of the bring-back K98 Mauser your grandfather or father gave you, as well as your entire genealogical tree, if they so wanted to. The only limitations would be the man power to implement the infrastructure, and that's trivial.

On this bill itself: those crafty bastards! They're trying to get the support of firearm owners who just like the nifty toys and don't have much regard for the 2nd, or simply don't realize that such a law will ultimately result in fewer rights. There are a lot of firearm owners out there who dont hold the 2A to be in such high regard that they wouldn't trade it in for a silenced full-auto MP5 (tactical tommies, anyone?), and probably even more who don't have a clue that this bill will even violate the 2A.


3. Training at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time - no "Government Facility that has a 20 year waiting list, takes 2000 hours and costs $10k, plus $5k per weapon or attachment, yearly training and yearly fees." Basically, using average or mean existing CCW qualifiers. I'm not gonna lose sleep over whether it should be 35 hours, 40 hours or 41.647 hours, and cost $50/5 years, $40/4 years, or $50/4years.

That's utter nonsense. What we have now in SD is "reasonable", and anything more is restrictive: fill out a short form, submit form with $10, and you get back a CC permit in the mail in 10 days. Even if the guidelines say that it's supposed to be "reasonable", or that shall-issue permits shall be granted within a month or whatever, there will still be very populous parts of the country which would ignore those guidelines (NYC and LA, for instance, but there'd be others).

LawBot5000
June 11, 2007, 12:50 AM
Three words: cold dead hands.

We are already winning, there is no need to compromise and give any ground to the gun grabbers. Since Chicago wants a federal law to solve a Chicago problem, why don't we have a national corrupt politician registry instead?

SoCalShooter
June 11, 2007, 12:51 AM
Two words: massive non-compliance

I think you would probably have 100,000,000+ criminals overnight.

And massive non-complience describes it perfectly, the constitution already says that it is the right of the people to bear arms, and the government cannot interfere with that right like it has already.

Kali Endgame
June 11, 2007, 12:53 AM
If they can register the cars, then they can easily register the guns.

Here's an idea: How about we ban crime and register criminals. Oop, that isn't working, is it?

Why do they continue to target law abbiding citizens? Criminals, by definition, don't abide by the laws.

I just wasted two munutes of my life writing this. Oh well.

Gifted
June 11, 2007, 01:00 AM
I looked at the cars/guns comparison. I think it'd be great. Did you know you can own a car without a driver's license? You can also drive one on private property without any registration.

So, like cars, you'd have classes of license according to what you're carrying and how you're carrying it. Concealed pistol, open pistol, long arm, heavy weapons, possibly up to howitzer size. Like a car, you have to have the license to carry, register the gun, and you'd have to have insurance, though I'm not sure what that would be. Add in some protection for traveling(you don't need to license a car to carry it on a trailer), and such as that. Everything else goes bye-bye.

And this would be shall issue, just like driver's licenses. You can go to the store, buy your gun, and take it home. Take it to the range, whatever. Hunting guns would need to be registered, and you'd need a hunting license, and of course CCW.

I haven't thought it all out, so I'm sure there's a few things I'm missing. There's a bunch of crap in there that'd we'd need to go through, possibly a few things we wouldn't want. I think it might be worth looking into though.

THE DRILL INSTRUCTOR
June 11, 2007, 01:22 AM
I don't agree. I don't think anyone but me should know what guns I own and why. It's my business, and If I get pulled over and a LEO runs my name and comes up with too many guns, he might think I'm something I'm not (Not bashing LEOs, most of you guys are great)

Anyway, like it has been said before 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Whether I own a .22 revolver or a 155mm howitzer, It's my business and not the goverments. And as for public safety, I think that if the govenment as a whole is working properly there should be no crime. Criminals should be too afraid to commit crimes, and if the odd psycho should pop up here or there he's gonna get blasted by everyone, because everyone should have a gun, and have it with them.

None of this matters anyway. When america wakes up and the SHTF, I'll be there to put things right and go back to basics.

And I hope you'll all join me when it comes time to do that thing that we aren't supposed to talk about!

Caimlas
June 11, 2007, 01:29 AM
Employees hired to register the guns... couple that with people hired on low wages and who probably would enter things wrong.

Hmm, I might consider working for the government again after all...

That said, there are very few instances of problems with driver license and unintentional ID confusion (ie other than ID theft). Any problems with the system will likely be intentionally put in place by people involved with the effort who would rather not see it go through successfully.

prince, your number is over twice as big as the real number. 250-300 million guns and about 80-100 million gun owners. The average gun owner has 3 guns.

Yes, but what of the median gun owner? There are many, many people out there who own literally hundreds of guns. I know of a guy who has "a drawer full of .357 magnums" meaning the deep desk drawer variety.

I just find it very, very hard to believe that there is less than 1 gun per person in this country (given that we just broke the 300 million person limit) given that any gun owning household is likely to have at least two generations of firearms at this point.

Anyway, the reason they want to create this database is because they want to cow us by turning us into criminals. If, in addition to the existing criminal population, the population of "I haven't done anything wrong, hwat have I to fear?" types will decrease by at least a million. In doing so, the government creates 100 million people who would then be living in fear of the government, and therefore more easily controlled. "We have dirt on you, and if you don't roll on that guy who believes on the Constitution, we'll put you in jail instead."

Gifted: NO NO NO NO NO! I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong on so many levels. First, car ownership and the ability to acquire a driver's license isn't a right. And you can very easily buy and drive a car on public roads without a license (just don't get caught - not that hard to do in much of the country). And, realistically, the federal government will not make it easy to do anything - is it generally hastle-free to deal with the government at any capacity, in your opinion?

There's also the whole "we now have a list of every known firearm in the country and the people who possess them; we can clean out certain state firearm ownership - except for the criminals - in the more urban states in a couple months using police force if we want, now!" side of things.


And I hope you'll all join me when it comes time to do that thing that we aren't supposed to talk about!

Huh? What are you talking about? Crowing corn and making whiskey? :P

illspirit
June 11, 2007, 02:04 AM
I don't support the idea of a national registry, but I do think Cellar Dweller had the right idea on flooding it with fun amendments. If only to use as a poison pill. On top of those mentioned, how about:

* Having classes/endorsements like motorcycles and commercial vehicles do on a drivers license, only for machine guns and destructive devices instead.

* If we're really treating them like cars, make all the licensing stuff a State function.

* Building on the car analogy, have mandatory gun safety training in high school a la drivers ed. (This might be a fun idea as its own bill anyway)

The antis would flip out over the last one. Then we would be the ones asking them why they don't want kids to be safe. :p

Cellar Dweller
June 11, 2007, 06:39 AM
On this bill itself: those crafty bastards! They're trying to get the support of firearm owners who just like the nifty toys and don't have much regard for the 2nd, or simply don't realize that such a law will ultimately result in fewer rights. There are a lot of firearm owners out there who dont hold the 2A to be in such high regard that they wouldn't trade it in for a silenced full-auto MP5 (tactical tommies, anyone?), and probably even more who don't have a clue that this bill will even violate the 2A.


Congressman Bobby Rush does not care about Constitutional issues nor does he care what firearm owners think. I would expect "his" license to be expensive and hard to get; probably with some sort of "demonstratable needs" provision - and of course it does nothing to reduce "gun violence." Criminals (aka more than a few of his constituents), by definition, won't need one.

Instead of the usual "call your Congressman to oppose" (who can Mr. Rush's constituents call?) and letting the antis dictate what is a "reasonable" compromise, I'm suggesting a preemptive strike. Trade the registry (CCW, FOID, C&R and "permits to purchase" are government licenses, BATFE can inspect 4473s at whim, so unless all your purchases are off-paper you're in a government database) for the striking down of just about all odious gun control laws. It should also include verbage regarding confiscations and future proposed gun control as "not gonna happen, so don't even THINK about suggesting it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will likely happen is the bill will be drafted by a staffer, as bad as you or I can imagine, then Congressman Rush will introduce it. NFA, GCA, FOPA (the bad parts), AWB I, Brady Bill, and Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (to name a few) all became law...If you have to register something (probably before taking it home or a f2f purchase), then you don't have a right to it. You are being allowed it.
Like a select-fire weapon which must have been made prior to 1986 (that is the "bad part" of FOPA I was referring to)? Or the the "allowance" of a SBS/SBR/AOW/suppressor, as in permit to purchase + registry + tax + fingerprints + kidney + lung + first-born child? :evil:

Ratzinger_p38
June 11, 2007, 07:57 AM
don't know what FOPA is, but I know it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The FOPA - Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986. It protects FFLs from unreasonable searches from the ATF, forbids a federal registry database of firearms, but unfortunately Democrats at the time (remember - Reagan had a Democratic controlled Congress his whole time in office) put in the freezing of the MG registry.

I doubt Booby Rush even realizes his act is illegal. Oops, thats right he probably doesnt care.

30 cal slob
June 11, 2007, 08:15 AM
How about instead of showing them a national gun ID card, I just show them my middle finger.

Well, I was thinking of using my bare posterior instead, since both of my middle fingers will be wrapped around my pistol (when they aren't up my nose).

Prince Yamato
June 11, 2007, 09:15 AM
prince, your number is over twice as big as the real number. 250-300 million guns and about 80-100 million gun owners. The average gun owner has 3 guns.

I'm also taking into account guns sitting in dealer's inventories. I don't know when the cencus was last taken, but I'd still bet that my number was closer to the real one. I'm going to bet (given the attitude I've seen on THR) that most of us under-report the number of guns we own :) . So between under-reported ownership and dealer inventory, the 750 million mark probably isn't that far off.

RealGun
June 11, 2007, 09:35 AM
Wild spin off, I know, but I am thinking, yeah, why not just do what the UN proposed for Iraq and provide gun ownership only with government approval? If that's where it's headed, why not cut to the chase? Who is fooled by this stuff?

alucard0822
June 11, 2007, 10:48 AM
opening up a registration on owners/guns basically gives any politician a huge database for taxation/confiscation/2A infringment gone wild, fight it and fight it hard. gun control and crime control are basically apples and avacados, always have been, and always will be.

jselvy
June 11, 2007, 11:12 AM
Historical analysis proves that Registration always (without fail) leads to confiscation.
I am not going to put all of my research on here so don't ask for it.

Jefferson

TallPine
June 11, 2007, 12:12 PM
your number is over twice as big as the real number
How do you know?

All such numbers are merely estimates.

romma
June 11, 2007, 12:13 PM
Well, I was thinking of using my bare posterior instead

Too much a perfect target with gun grabbers...

coyote_jr
June 11, 2007, 12:17 PM
How about instead of showing them a national gun ID card, I just show them my middle finger. The extended digit is straight and representative of a gun barrel. It means that I own a firearm. Anyone who gives a similar sign to a national firearms registry is signaling to the authorities that they too are in possession of a firearm. I think message will be clear to all authorities.

Awesome. The theme music from Braveheart was in my head after the first sentence.

JohnBT
June 11, 2007, 12:43 PM
"Rush was an active participant in the unprecedented Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. In an effort to secure basic civil and human rights for African-Americans, women and others, he was a member of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SIMCC) from 1966 to 1968 and a co-founder of the Illinois Black Panther Party in 1968." - from his site

General Geoff
June 11, 2007, 01:00 PM
If they want to register guns similarly to cars, fine. Then you have to have a license and get your sidearm registered with the state, so you can legally carry that anywhere and everywhere.

Firearms which do not leave your home or the range, loaded, are not subject to this. Just like you don't have to register or insure a car you have sitting in your garage, you would not have to register all the guns in your closet. Just the one you carry on your side from day to day.

I got no problem with that. :D

alucard0822
June 11, 2007, 01:19 PM
So who wants to guess what Mccarthy, Bloomberg or most of the 08 prez frontrunners woluld do with a nationwide list of gun owners, seems like a good way to sidestep the tidehart ammendment, 2nd ammendment, and founding principles in general. Bloomberg has tried to sue, mccarthy has tried to legislate, and Marylands own dissapointment McCulski has tried to withold funding, all to accomplish their goal of a gun free Utopia, they will not give up, neither can we. It is much much easier to write, call, vote, show up at hearings and organize now than it will be to hide from or fight the goons they send our way when we give em the finger.

ghschirtz
June 11, 2007, 01:22 PM
Why gather information about the law-abiding who will continue, we can expect, abide with the law?

What gain is there in this?

There is no gain I can see, so there can only be a loss to come, in some way.

Government has to reprioritize on what its important and proper functions are. Increasing surveillance of the law-abiding isn't one of them.

Deanimator
June 11, 2007, 01:47 PM
Anybody willing to go along with registration is cordially invited to try to figure out how to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with their handguns...

ctdonath
June 11, 2007, 02:39 PM
Two words: massive non-complianceYou missed a word: simultaneous. They're happy to prosecute a few so long as only a few cross the line at a time; we're not all willing to cross that line all at once.

I think it'd be great. Did you know you can own a car without a driver's license? You can also drive one on private property without any registration. ... I haven't thought it all out, so I'm sure there's a few things I'm missing. There's a bunch of crap in there that'd we'd need to go through, possibly a few things we wouldn't want. I think it might be worth looking into though.What you're considering is NOT new/novel/interesting. The "treat 'em like cars" idea has been thoroughly considered, and found desperately wanting.

The primary disconnect in the analogy is:
1. You use a car on public property, but (generally speaking) you do not use a gun on public property ... and when you do "use" it (for defense), the state has no business in beating you up because you didn't do some paperwork to protect your life.
2. "...shall not be infringed". Licensing does nothing useful, precisely because it only addresses those people who are demonstrably not the problem, and should/shall not be burdened with preemptively proving their innocence.

Realize too that many states have requirements far less than the car-licensing-style paperwork you're considering. Completely unlicensed purchase & open carry of guns is perfectly legal in much of the country; we're not going to put up with a national carry requirement precisely because it will invariably be much worse than anything we have in VT, AK, AZ, NH, GA, etc.

Consider the car-licensing analogy for your own edification, but realize that it was considered long ago and discounted as absolutely not what we want nationally. You're far better off getting the "individual RKBA" ruling in the DC Parker case incorporated to the states via the 14th (?) amendment, and getting the 922(o) machinegun ban overturned, and getting the "full faith and credit" clause applied to compel interstate recognition of state licenses.

SoCalShooter
June 11, 2007, 03:25 PM
The car analogy in my opinion is a waste anyways if you look at how many people are cited for speeding, DUI and other violations! And a lot of those people have licenses to drive a car, having a license does not make you any safer or less safe.

DonP
June 11, 2007, 07:53 PM
Rush is posturing and using this man's grief over his dead son as a political tool. It's really despicable, but not unexpected.

Even the reports on the news here in Chicago are all including a closing line after they report Bobbie Rush's new gun control proposals reminding everyone that "... of course, guns are already banned in Chicago".

The short version is that Rush needs Daley's Democrat machine support in the next round of elections. With Jessie Jackson Jr. wielding more political clout, now that his wife is on Daley's city council, Rush wants to be sure he keeps his seat at the big kids table.

Anyone with a half a brain (the average Cook County voter for instance) has to understand that what they are doing is trying once again to make something even more illegal than it already is.

Funny how Bobbie Rush thought gun ownership as a great idea back in 1968 when his buddies Fred Hampton and a bunch of other Black Panther's were killed in their sleep by a Chicago Police raid. The cops rationale was that they were holding an "arsenal" at the time. I guess he's "evolved" in his positions.

This proposal is going nowhere and is NOT a good platform for amendments we might all like. There' isn't a single congress critter I'd trust not to vote for it, as is.

At this point, with the Dem's in congress looking more and more ineffective to their fringe base, Pelosi and company would jump with both feet on a bill like this that they could wave to their far left supporters to prove they could get something "important" done.

Two years ago the ISRA tried to reach a "reasonable compromise" with the state level pinheads on limiting some types of rifles in return for the destruction of purchase records the governor had the state police holding.

Once it was passed he did a line item veto and screwed the gun owners of Illinois. He still has the records of every gun purchased in the state.

There is no room for "reasonable compromise" anymore with anyone.

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 12:46 AM
Firearms which do not leave your home or the range, loaded, are not subject to this. Just like you don't have to register or insure a car you have sitting in your garage, you would not have to register all the guns in your closet. Just the one you carry on your side from day to day.

I got no problem with that.

And when they use the registration list for confiscation, what then? Are they not going to confiscate unregistered firearms - just the ones you've got registered? And that's accepting with blind faith that they won't expand the definition of what needs to be registered.

Why gather information about the law-abiding who will continue, we can expect, abide with the law?

What gain is there in this?

Qui bono? Well, obviously it's the government - they get more power out of the deal, and therefore are more able to make whichever law they want down the line.

illspirit
June 12, 2007, 06:18 AM
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il01_rush/blairsbill.html

Congressman Rush introduces gun legislation named after Blair Holt, the Julian High School hero

Chicago, IL. ---- U.S. Rep. Rush was joined by Ronald Holt, the father of Blair Holt, Rufus Williams, president of the Chicago Board of Education, law enforcement officials and community activists to introduce Blair Holtís Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007-HR 2666 (Blairís Bill) aimed at curbing senseless violence by implementing a uniform system for purchasers of certain firearms.

The group gathered at the location where Holtís son Blair, was elevated from being an honor student attending Julian High School to a hero when he used his body to shield a ultimately save a female friend.

ďThe proliferation of guns in our community impacts us all. My son lost his life back in 1999 due to senseless gun violence and my nephew sits in jail today, convicted of fatally shooting someone. Like all of you, I am sick and tired of scenes like this being replayed over and over again in our neighborhoods," said Rep. Rush, chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.

"Since the beginning of this school year alone, over 31 children have lost their life by violence, and the great majority were killed with guns. In response to these tragedies, I am introducing a bill in Congress that would regulate gun trafficking and possession in this country. HR 2666, Blairís Bill, will implement a nationwide program of licensing all individuals who possess firearms and require all guns to be registered in a national gun registry," he added.

According to police, Michael Pace boarded an eastbound 103rd Street CTA bus at 103rd and Halsted about 3:20 p.m. on May 10 and started shooting, striking two males and three females, all of whom were students at Julian. Kevin Jones is accused of giving Pace the gun, knowing he wanted to use it to try to kill someone he had argued with. Julian High School student Blair Holt used his body to shield and ultimately save a female friend.

The purpose of the Bill is:
(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;
(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;
(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and
(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

HR 2666. Bill text isn't in thomas.loc.gov yet though..

Gifted
June 12, 2007, 05:28 PM
Gifted: NO NO NO NO NO! I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong on so many levels. First, car ownership and the ability to acquire a driver's license isn't a right. And you can very easily buy and drive a car on public roads without a license (just don't get caught - not that hard to do in much of the country). And, realistically, the federal government will not make it easy to do anything - is it generally hastle-free to deal with the government at any capacity, in your opinion? In most states being able to carry a weapons isn't a right. And people carry concealed without licenses all the time. Not terribly important, since most people have already pointed the main fallacies of the idea, not that it's not fun to think about.

Ratzinger_p38
June 12, 2007, 05:38 PM
THR Law experts: The chances of this one going through are slim arent they?

This law of course, is in itself against the current law. I doubt he knows or cares.

Crunker1337
June 12, 2007, 05:47 PM
If a law such as this passes, it'll be prohibition all over again.

I wonder who the next Al Capone will be?

jselvy
June 12, 2007, 05:59 PM
During the last prohibition my family were moonshiners, maybe during the next I can be a "Gunshiner."

Jefferson

DonP
June 12, 2007, 07:20 PM
A little background on Bobbie Rush.

In addition to being one of the original Black Panthers that walked around downtown Chicago armed, his personal track record leaves a bit to be desired.

His son was shot and killed in a gang related shootout on the street and one of his nephews is in prison for life for shooting and killing another gang member.

I guess his first move, if he really wants to control guns, would be to take them away from all of his family members.

Beagle-zebub
June 12, 2007, 09:30 PM
Funny how Bobbie Rush thought gun ownership as a great idea back in 1968 when his buddies Fred Hampton and a bunch of other Black Panther's were killed in their sleep by a Chicago Police raid. The cops rationale was that they were holding an "arsenal" at the time. I guess he's "evolved" in his positions.

I'll say. :barf:

lamazza
June 12, 2007, 09:44 PM
National registry?

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand


Evil requires the sanction of the victim.
Ayn Rand

ctdonath
June 12, 2007, 11:24 PM
Just like you don't have to register or insure a car you have sitting in your garage, you would not have to register all the guns in your closet. Just the one you carry on your side from day to day. I got no problem with that.I do have an unregistered car sitting in my garage. Thanks to stupid licensing laws, I can't even take it for a short spin around the block occasionally to make sure everything is still lubed & functioning properly; instead, I'm legally obligated to let it sit and rot there. What's the difference between that vehicle and my licensed ones? Answer: lack of a single small metal plate with numbers on it. What good does that do? Answer: nothing. Frankly, methinks the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the notion of registering vehicles & drivers; why yes I do believe there is a right to unrestricted* vehicular travel, that it is covered by the 9th/10th Amendments, and that licensing vehicles & drivers is a perfect example of why registering guns is stupid. Here in GA, there are only two reasons why vehicles are registered:
1. Taxation.
2. In a very few counties, emissions checks.
That's it. Now kindly explain why vehicle licensing exists.

Next...
I don't know what state you live it. I live in GA. I do not have to register with the state ANY guns in my closet, including the ones I carry on my side from day to day. The only licensing involved is the action of carrying any gun on my side ... which is silly, because the only people who get that license are exactly the ones who shouldn't have to put up with such "guilty until proven innocent" crap.

Finally...
I DO have a problem with that. It all presumes I'm guilty of something, and I have to jump thru hoops and pay fees just to prove I'm innocent and should be allowed to harmlessly exercise my rights. I have yet to see ANY explanation of why licensing weapons - or cars for that matter - is useful to any degree beyond enhancing governmental oppressive powers and revenue enhancement.

Remember the 4th Amendment: to wit "the people shall be secure in their papers". That means the government better have a darn good reason, demonstrable to a judge, to access ANY of your papers. I believe that precludes licensing of anything, as such compels people to reveal personal information - most of which is irrelevant to the act/item being licensed - to engage in harmless exercise of natural rights. Let me expand that last point: licensing requires you to get permission to harmlessly exercise a right; dangerous actions are still forbidden ... so what's the point of licensing driving or weapons possession? esp. as it never seems to do any particular good...

To put it simply:
What good does licensing do? Seriously? Nothing!
Those who subject themselves to licensing would be no more a problem if they were not licensed.

* - Like other rights, the only restrictions allowed on driving should be adjudicated in court against a specific person for specific reasons.

Autolycus
June 12, 2007, 11:40 PM
FOPA itself is a horribly unconstitutional law. IT violates states rights.

Ratzinger_p38
June 12, 2007, 11:44 PM
FOPA itself is a horribly unconstitutional law. IT violates states rights.

My point in bringing it up is, the congressman is so ignorant of the law, that he is introducing a bill he knows wont go anywhere to pay lip service. Pretty rotten that he is related to the killer, and this is his way of 'helping the victims family' by introducing a law that wouldn't have prevented squat.

As far as FOPA goes, I like the peaceable journey part - imagine if you had to get a 'permit' to bring a gun in the state for 3 hours while you drive through it like you do in Mass.

Autolycus
June 13, 2007, 12:02 AM
Well the Peacable journey part infringes upon the states rights. It is the same argument used against the national reciprocity bill. Either you allow one or you allow both.

Ratzinger_p38
June 13, 2007, 12:07 AM
Well the Peacable journey part infringes upon the states rights. It is the same argument used against the national reciprocity bill.

Well arent you a regular Jefferson Davis...:D Yeah, youre right it is, but you have to admit - imagine how much it would suck to get 9 or 10 permits if you had to do a cross country move.

And those state rights youre speaking of, infringe upon the 2A, thus IMO making them null and void.

Cellar Dweller
June 13, 2007, 02:10 AM
Well the Peacable journey part infringes upon the states rights.

If you believe that RKBA is recognized by the 2nd Amendment, then the states waived interrupting "Safe Passage" when they signed up to be part of these United States.

It is the same argument used against the national reciprocity bill.

Which shouldn't BE necessary - "Full Faith and Credit." Off the top of my head, it works for state DL, state ID, marriage license, divorce court proceedings, adoption/birth, incorporation...doesn't apply for lawyers, doctors, boxers or CCW for some reason.

I don't need to register my car in other states to drive through them, nor do I need to re-marry every time I cross a state border for the first time. Neither car plates nor marriage is in the Constitution, which then delegates the power to the states to regulate such - therefore both examples interfere with "states rights" too...

illspirit
June 14, 2007, 10:34 AM
Full text is online now. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2666:

I'd paste the text, but it's like 20 pages long, so, here's some highlights:

License needed for "any handgun" or "any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device." Licenses would cost $25/five years, and would be a "tamper-resistant card" with a photograph and stuff.

Private party sales would be banned for qualifying weapons mentioned above. All sales would have to go through an FFL or some such for registration. Registration which would become legal by:

Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.

Licensing and registration of new sales would start one year after the bill is signed. Registration of previously owned guns would have to be done in a year after that.

Looks like the bill would skirt the FFL inspection limits in FOPA to allow random harassment:

In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.

And more crazy stuff where that came from..

Elza
June 14, 2007, 11:27 AM
Prince Yamato: Employees hired to register the guns... couple that with people hired on low wages and who probably would enter things wrong.Looks like a great place to employ all of the illegals they want to make instant citizens. :barf:

Bezoar
June 14, 2007, 12:27 PM
(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--

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) 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; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;


They dont give actual guidelines here, the information they want you to know before sounds like you must:
pass a handgun course at say, thunder ranch
have passed a ccw course for all state requirements

THey dont mention what guidelines to be used for safe securing the guns. I know brady bunch and "feel gooders" want the gun dissassembled and stored in multiple locations....

And are they going to make current owners of semi auto weaponry retroactively go through the "i can prove i can legally buy it now" as far as "safety training" is concerned?

illspirit
June 14, 2007, 12:52 PM
They dont give actual guidelines here, the information they want you to know before sounds like you must:
pass a handgun course at say, thunder ranch
have passed a ccw course for all state requirements

THey dont mention what guidelines to be used for safe securing the guns. I know brady bunch and "feel gooders" want the gun dissassembled and stored in multiple locations....

Section E says the AG can add any other subjects deemed appropriate, so it would seem they can make up the rules as they go along. If the AG watches a pirate movie and decides it would be a good idea for you to bury gun parts in various places around your property and draw a treasure map for them, then I guess that would be "safe storage."

And are they going to make current owners of semi auto weaponry retroactively go through the "i can prove i can legally buy it now" as far as "safety training" is concerned?

Yep.

`(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term `applicable date' means--

`(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

`(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007, 1 year after such date of enactment.'.

Cellar Dweller
June 14, 2007, 06:24 PM
(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `qualifying firearm'--

`(A) means--

`(i) any handgun; or

`(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

`(B) does not include any antique.'.


And there you go...won't affect the 'hunters and sportsmen.' Since it's an opt-in system, a lower court could easily rule that this bill does not conflict with RKBA - and the SCOTUS could easily sidestep as usual.

SEC. 801. INAPPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.
As usual, the 'elite' are exempted.

SEC. 305. CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, 303, and 304 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(gg) Child Access Prevention-

`(1) DEFINITION OF CHILD- In this subsection, the term `child' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

`(2) PROHIBITION AND PENALTIES- Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any 1 of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person, if--

`(A) that person--

`(i) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child is capable of gaining access to the firearm; and

`(ii) either--

`(I) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child will use the firearm to cause the death of, or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) to, the child or any other person; or

`(II) knows, or reasonably should know, that possession of the firearm by a child is unlawful under Federal or State law; and

`(B) a child uses the firearm and the use of that firearm causes the death of, or serious bodily injury to, the child or any other person.
`(3) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (2) shall not apply if--

`(A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;

`(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the official duties of the person in that capacity;

`(C) the child uses the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or more other persons; or

`(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.'.

Gotta lock up that nightstand gun or the shotty under the bed.

Ratzinger_p38
June 14, 2007, 07:25 PM
Doesnt have a prayer. The guy who introduced this bill is a walking joke anyway. If HR1022 is toxic enough, this bill will be like nuclear fallout to any Democrat who wants to be reelected.

ctdonath
June 14, 2007, 10:01 PM
Licenses would cost $25/five yearsNo can do. Confiscating several thousand dollars worth of personally-owned stuff for want of renewal of a single piece of paper and periodic petty tax won't be tolerated.

Even NFA isn't that bad - once you get something, it's yours forever (only 'restriction' then is notification of relocation; no tax or expiring paperwork).

Cellar Dweller
June 15, 2007, 12:30 AM
Doesnt have a prayer. The guy who introduced this bill is a walking joke anyway. If HR1022 is toxic enough, this bill will be like nuclear fallout to any Democrat who wants to be reelected.

"Doesn't have a prayer" <-----Like McCain-Feingold? Like PATRIOT I and II? Like the Republicans NOT rolling back gun control, spending, illegal immigration, and socialism when they had the House, Senate and Presidency?

"Walking joke" <----Perhaps so, yet he keeps getting reelected, so he's no joke to the majority of his voting constituents.

"If HR1022 is toxic enough, this bill will be like nuclear fallout to any Democrat who wants to be reelected." <-----49 cosponsors on HR1022, all of whom appear to be Democrats. This is less toxic, because nothing is being banned.

Step 1: Register owners and "AWB 2-type" stuff first while allowing people to keep them.
Step 2: Wait for a Democrat/RINO victory in 2008; if Pres/Senate/House are swept,
Step 3: AWB 2, plus confiscation. If no sweep, AWB 2 without confiscation.

Guiliani and Romney would certainly sign AWB2, McCain - no one can say for sure what he would do. The anointed Demos couldn't whip out their pens fast enough...

Ratzinger_p38
June 15, 2007, 12:49 AM
Doesn't have a prayer" <-----Like McCain-Feingold? Like PATRIOT I and II? Like the Republicans NOT rolling back gun control, spending, illegal immigration, and socialism when they had the House, Senate and Presidency?

Without going into a debate about examples named, this bill goes has been introduced by someone with low credibility. And we all know how politically explosive registration is. Why do I think it doesnt have a prayer? Because even McCarthy hasnt tried this before....and because some Democrats want to get reelected in 08.

This is less toxic, because nothing is being banned.

I disagree, the old AWB didnt have registration - which is a gun owner's worst nightmare.

BAT1
June 15, 2007, 01:01 AM
That's what Hitler did before he confiscated them all. We know what happened next. A ride on the train.

Ratzinger_p38
June 15, 2007, 07:39 AM
That's what Hitler did before he confiscated them all. We know what happened next. A ride on the train.

What? The only change to gun laws during the National Socialist era was in 1938, when guns were were allowed except to certain 'prohibited classes' IE known criminals, mentallly handicapped...and well, Jews. The previous 'democratic' government, Wiemar Republic, is actually the one that disarmed everyone (in 1919).

ctdonath
June 15, 2007, 02:34 PM
This is less toxic, because nothing is being banned.It bans ownership. Don't pay the periodic renewal tax, you lose 'em - that's not ownership. Worse, if they don't accept the renewal tax, you lose 'em.

People keep losing sight of the fact that federally, there is no ban (save for post-'86 machineguns). Why would we want a federal system that is far more restrictive than what we have now?

illspirit
June 15, 2007, 02:46 PM
Why would we want a federal system that is far more restrictive than what we have now?

We don't. I think he means it will seem less toxic to the antis since anything short of a total ban seems "reasonable" to them.

Deanimator
June 15, 2007, 04:39 PM
Worse, if they don't accept the renewal tax, you lose 'em.

Bingo.

Every time some drooling product of incest and foetal alcohol syndrome tells me how I don't need to fear registration, I just ask him:

"What do I need to do in order to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns?"

I get two kinds of responses, crickets and outright lies.

PILMAN
August 1, 2007, 01:56 PM
What's the latest on this bill?

Deanimator
August 1, 2007, 02:01 PM
It won't pass, and I wouldn't obey it if it did.

ozwyn
August 1, 2007, 04:14 PM
at the risk of sounding less than high road - this kind of congressional activity makes reasonable people consider voting from somewhere other than a ballot box.

Matt King
August 1, 2007, 05:13 PM
Is this an Illinois bill, or a federal bill?

wjustinen
August 1, 2007, 05:22 PM
infringement of 2A rights.

That being said, once such a reasonable law is in effect there is absolutely nothing preventing a future change to the law adding all those bad things you listed that need to be left out.

Here in Canada we are just sitting and waiting for the next shoe to drop. Although, in recent years, there has been some acknowlegement among gun owners that self-defence is an appropriate use. Until that becomes a demand, we remain in a precarious position.

jefnvk
August 1, 2007, 06:27 PM
Anyone else get annoyed with how every bill has to be named after someone that got hurt by doing what it was trying to prevent? Appealing to a persons pathos, apparently is the way to get stuff done, when yuo can't just let the know the facts to decide for themselves.

I would just like to point out how well Canada's national firearm registry has worked. Not to pick on them, they have alot less people and a lot less guns, and its still horribly costly and ineffective.

jefnvk
August 1, 2007, 06:29 PM
You know, one thing I just thought of. Why not require all gov't agencies to follow this as well? That would be a poison pill. Imagine if every police officer, every soldier, ever Secret Service agent had to go through the same thing as us.

kermit315
August 1, 2007, 07:37 PM
i agree jefnvk, apply the rule equally and across the board, then see who really supports it in the end.

i bet when that happens alot of people that were originally for it all of a sudden find something wrong with it and back off.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Blair's Bill" - National registry/licensing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!