[BlueStreak03]

I did a keyword search on the Library of Congress website for 'firearm' relating to legislation for the 111th Congress. It returned a list of bills of course. One of them concerns me more than the rest. It's HR 45 entitled 'Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009'.

I read the text of this bill and I do not like it one single bit. It establishes requirements for all gun owners to obtain a license from the Federal Government to the cost of $25, I'm not sure if it's a per gun fee or per person. What this does is involve the federal government into the process of obtaining a firearm. That enables the government to deny a license for whatever reason they may deem. Also it establishes a database of gun owners and the guns that they own.

Standing alone, this bill may seem fairly mild, but coupled with other laws that could come down the line, it could severely hamper the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain guns for their own reasons as they can now under the 2nd Amendment.


On the other hand I saw a couple of bills that I do like. One of them is HR 197 which is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. In short, this will establish reciprocity between states for CCW holders. If this were to pass, it would remove a rather large hurdle for anyone who is a permitted CCW gun owner to carry concealed while not in their home state.

The other piece that I liked was HR 17, 'Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009'. This bill does not create any new laws from what I read, but it is basically a Congressional affirmation of the 2nd Amendment's extension to the right to defend themselves and their family from violent crime. The only thing that I did not like about this particular bill is that it does not mention the right to defend oneself from the Government, which is a large tenant of the 2nd Amendment.


Since all of these were introduced in the House, I emailed my Representative and urged her support or opposition to each of these as desired. I included the line 'I know I am not the only person with these views. We are watching and we are keeping tabs on who votes how.'

I recommend that everyone else does the same.

[countymounty]

Good find! I’m sure we will see more pop up all over the place in the next month! There is case law somewhere that says they cant keep a list of gun owners. It was one reason the FBI check on firearms purchases was challenged in court. They only allowed them because they were to destroy the records after so many days.

Of course the ATF has a good memory, they have walked in and requested info on people 1 ½ years a purchase. Darn good memories!

[jim293]

I wonder if this license is going to do. In California we have to take a test and it costs $25 and with that you get a piece of paper stating you know the safety rules of owning a gun. Makes me curious what they have in mind.

[Snake Pliskin]

I'm sure we will see attacks on the second on a never seen before level now that the messiah is taking power. The Brady bunch sent their list of demands already. The economy is tanking but gun and ammo makers can't make enough. I guess others feel as I do. If you haven't already gotten your 21st century "brown bess" in 5.56 x 45, your opportunity window may be closed. It will be done under "common sense" and "saving the children" pleas to irrational yet emotional issues. A little "common sense" here and there and we will have lost our firearms to death by a thousand cuts of common sense. Make no mistake about it, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein and Obama have a clearly defined agenda when it comes to your guns.

[tripleblack]

Originally Posted by jim293

I wonder if this license is going to do. In California we have to take a test and it costs $25 and with that you get a piece of paper stating you know the safety rules of owning a gun. Makes me curious what they have in mind.

Very similar. Testing is required for the Federal version as well.

[BlueStreak03]

And we all know testing is, there's the opportunity to fail and be denied your right to own a firearm.


The whole thing stinks like last week's diapers.

[JB02GT]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak03

On the other hand I saw a couple of bills that I do like. One of them is HR 197 which is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. In short, this will establish reciprocity between states for CCW holders. If this were to pass, it would remove a rather large hurdle for anyone who is a permitted CCW gun owner to carry concealed while not in their home state.

I would actually not want to see that Bill passed, either. My reasoning? As much as I would like to see every state in the Union adopt carry permit programs, I feel that it is a state's right to decide if they are going to adopt such legislation and what the details of the legislation will be, not the Federal Government's right. Think of it this way, if we gun owners support such a bill, IMO, we are supporting a move to allow the feds to make decisions which have, until now, been left up to the states. Once that wall is breeched and it becomes the feds' place to say that you can carry a gun in all states, how long would it take until they used that same power to say that you can't carry a gun in any state (which Obama has said he would like to do)? I suspect that this is a way to gain support from firearms owners to allow them to gain power to later restrict our rights by coming through the back door of appearing to support those rights. In other words, if the Fed can tell Commiefornia that they have to adopt TN's policy of allowing permit holders to carry, how long would it be until they were telling TN that we have to adopt Commiefornia's policies and official stances with regard to gun ownership? Better a patchwork of states with various rights than a federal blanket with none.

Further, as a carry permit holder, I realize that many right to carry states already have reciprocal agreements with other right to carry states and that some states that don't have carry permit programs still recognize ours (in Vermont, for instance, any resident who can own a handgun can carry a handgun, so there is no permit program, but they recognize TN's carry permit.) So, for the most part, for those states that allow private carry of any kind, why the heck do we need to get the feds involved? The states are already handling that amongst themselves (another reason I am suspicious that this Bill is really just an attempt by the Fed to set precedent for usurping states' rights to allow private carry.) Carrying a firearm comes with responsibilities and, although it might be a PITA, part of that responsibility includes knowing what states do not allow me to carry with my valid TN permit and to avoid those states or not carry within their borders. Besides, the libertarian in me opposes the fed usurping state's power on any issue that should be left up to the states - even if I don't support what some states do with that decision making power or might support what the feds claim to be wanting to do with that power right now.

Just as an example, here are the states with which TN already has reciprocal agreements (this information taken from the website of the Tennessee Department of Safety, which is the department responsible for issuing carry permits in TN.):

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

Here are the states with which no formal agreement exists but which recognize carry permits issued by Tennessee:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• Delaware
• Idaho
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• Utah
• Vermont

That leaves only the following states which do not recognize permits issued by TN:

• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Nebraska
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Washington
• Wisconsin

That's fifteen states out of fifty in which my carry permit is no good. As far as I know, some of those states probably don't even allow their own residents to carry - or make it very difficult for them to do so and have stringent laws for those who are allowed. I can't believe that any bill actually passed by the fed and signed into law by Obama would force those states to allow me to carry my handgun. Further, California has lists of what handguns can be sold there and regulations as to what kind of ammo is allowed. Even if they were forced to recognize my permit, they could pass further laws so that someone from another state might never be sure if their chosen carry weapon or ammo were legal to carry, there. This also means that my carry permit is already recognized by 35 states, including my home state, without the feds getting involved. Personally, I feel that system works better than giving the fed any more control than they already have over anything.

[tripleblack]

I agree with JB on this one. State's Rights are more important. Its one of those cases where we might win the battle, but sow the seeds to lose the war.

[BlueStreak03]

I had not even thought of it in that light JB.

I guess I should have put a little more thought into that one before I emailed my representative about it.

[tripleblack]

Nobody is perfect, Blue. I bet you just went from your gut, and I think your gut is about 99% right.

[JB02GT]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak03

I had not even thought of it in that light JB.

I guess I should have put a little more thought into that one before I emailed my representative about it.

Meh, you were responding as an honest person with an honest opinion on an important issue. Problem is, you are dealing with politicians and they don't have a reputation (overall, from either side of the aisle) of being honest. Hey, maybe this bill is even being proposed with good intent, but that doesn't mean some other legislator couldn't twist it's purpose to have the opposite effect, later. The fact that it inserts federal control into an issue that has been the domain of the states, when the president-elect would, apparently, like to see our right to carry for self defense go away, makes me uneasy.