HR 45, commonly referred to as Blair Holt’s Firearm and Record of Sale Act, has many members of society shooting holes in its intent. The act was initiated by Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois soon after he attended the funeral of 16 year old Blair Holt, who was killed by handgun fire in an attempt to shield a girl from gang violence on a school bus. Essentially, the act does the following:
* Prohibits possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license.
* Requires all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers.
* Directs the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system.
* Requires the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms.
Proponents of the the act maintain it is only meant to record who is purchasing and registering and transferring guns, not to surreptitiously infringe upon one’s Constitutional right to bear arms. Opponents, meanwhile, feel that the law is aimed punishing the weapon, not the weapon’s user or intent (e.g. criminals). Two common misconceptions circulating in mass e-mail blasts contend that: 1) an applicant must submit to a physical and mental evaluation at any time of their choosing; and, 2) households would be subject to searches for firearms to comply with the law. In reality, no evaluation is required and only vendors would be subject to searches.
As of now, the bill has no co-sponsors and, according to many sources, seems likely to die in subcommittee. Enacting it would run the risk of alienating roughly 80 million licensed gunowners, who also happen to be members of an influential group known as registered voters.
HR 45 goes against the very precepts of the 2nd Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The “people” includes all citizens pursuant to District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008).
Bottom line: It sets a dangerous precedent to widen the scope of civic authority to protect civilians against themselves. Think Germany or Italy in the 1930s, and you will have an idea of how this scenario could play out.
Regarding the “misconception” about a mental evaluation – the basis for this is the FACT that in my application I must include an authorization to release ANY mental health records pertaining to me.
So much for privacy and Dr-patient confidentiality!
So you see a psych because you’re stressed out, perhaps need some helpful therapy to deal with life – you MUST give up your right to privacy in order to exercise your 2nd amendment right. (PS see section 102 #8 for the exact text).
So you can’t be ordered to HAVE a mental eval, but if you CHOOSE to, your right to privacy is forfeit.
To what end? Lemme think – oh, I see. When the sociopath in town, who of course has been seeing a pshrink for his/her sociopathic tendencies, applies for gun ownership, said application will be denied, saving the otherwise unprotected folk from this persons nefarious plans.
I don’t want to make too much of this detail. It is by far not the most worrisome issue. The issue is the records themselves, and the potential for abuse of these records. Should I be in some database for buying a knife? For exercising my 1st amendment rights to worship as I please? Foy buying a car, a FAR more deadly weapon in many peoples hands based on deaths/injuries per capita.
It sounds somewhat reasonable at first blush. So I’m on a list as an owner of a firearm; where’s the harm?
The potential for harm is huge. And lets stop dancing around the elephant in the room. Those in power who push such legislation want nothing less than a complete ban on gun ownership in the US. Stop the BS. This is one more baby step toward that ultimate goal.
And where’s the benefit for this invasion of privacy and creation of a list of unimaginable potential abuse? That’s the other elephant (damn its crowded in here!). CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! THEIR name ain’t gonna be on no list! This list is not going to protect anyone from anything, and is not going to aid in the capture of some otherwise uncaptured bad guy.
In fact, the bad guys are drinking this stuff up! BAN guns! Because all those guns out there in law-abiding hands makes for a horrible work environment for robbers, rapists, killers, etc.
We HAVE good gun laws. Laws that for the most part I think are good. Background checks are required in my state (EVEN at gun shows btw). Enforce those laws. STOP letting bad guys back out on the street. THAT’S how we fight evil. Get better databases on the BAD GUYS, NOT the good guys!
Again we see state government taking aim at the 2nd Amendment. It is both unfair and inappropriate.
How stupid can the government get to infringe on our rights to own guns. Lots of country did similar things and then took people as slaves or were imprisoned or killed. Cannot believe they even would try and pass something like this… It could lead to a revolution..
What part of the Second Amendment does government not understand? It is clearly stated by our founders that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. This needs to be stopped !!!
I don’t understand why it would be unreasonable to jump through a few extra hoops to protect kids lives. If one is not a criminal, why should some extra rules be so horrible???
I don’t understand why it would be unreasonable to jump through a few extra hoops to protect kids’ lives. If one is not a criminal, why should some extra rules be so horrible???
Taking guns away from non-criminals will not protect a single kid’s life. Criminal kids will still disobey and kill one another.
— Jumping through hoops that take away our freedoms is a good beginning on the road to tyranny. Think about it, Amy. For example, if we made it criminal to slander we would be losing our freedom to speak because your definition of slander might be my personal opinion. — We need to preserve the rights we still have, there has been too much erosion already. We need to protect the quality of everyone’s lives. Cannot parents protect their kids’ lives better if they have a gun to shoot the home-invasion robber?