|
|
Post by edge on Feb 19, 2009 16:25:35 GMT -5
Here they come, and you said that it wouldn't happen! H.R. 45 will make gun Federal registration mandatory! H.R.45edge. |
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 19, 2009 17:02:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 20, 2009 1:53:52 GMT -5
Well, I guess if I an Illinois politician, I would not want to have anyone who really cared about anything of value, to be able to do anything about it. Except to speak out. Then you can only if you have a large enough insurance policy and the 4 cent per word "FREEDOM TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM TAX' fee to fund "THE ILLEAGAL ALIEN RETIREMENT FUND'.
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 20, 2009 1:57:25 GMT -5
Did that come across as sarcastic or sincere?  |
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 20, 2009 8:19:27 GMT -5
Sincerely sarcastic  edge. |
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 21, 2009 15:59:16 GMT -5
Thanks Edge, I sincerely needed to be straightened out on my sarcasim ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 24, 2009 12:08:29 GMT -5
This thing is really bad. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get 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, your Social Security # and you must submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing. Any change or 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 and 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 24, 2009 13:42:51 GMT -5
It is known what they want to do.
The question is what steps can be taken to prevent them getting their way. Would like to hear of steps we can take to effectively oppose their reaching their goals???
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 24, 2009 13:57:25 GMT -5
It is known what they want to do. The question is what steps can be taken to prevent them getting their way. Would like to hear of steps we can take to effectively oppose their reaching their goals??? Make sure that Obama does not replace Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas or in this particular case Kennedy! edge. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremylong on Mar 3, 2009 21:55:28 GMT -5
Illinois is the california of the midwest. Its just unfortunate a line could not be drawn just south of Chicago for a new state. Its just unbelievable.
Even more unbelievable is we chose these chicago folk to lead the country..... UNBELIEVABLE!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by paulslund on Mar 10, 2009 12:34:05 GMT -5
Welcome to my world. We've had a long-gun registry in Canada since 1995 (had guns have needed registration since the 1930's) and most would agree that it has been nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money. They tout it as being a tool to help prevent violent crime, etc, etc...but it's just a feel-good legislationt that doesn't do anything.
Some of the changes imposed in 1995 that I don't have issues with is the safe storage laws, the implementation of needing a firearm licence (I need a licence to drive my car too). What I dislike is that all this stuff is in the criminal code, so any infraction can get you a criminal record.
So far, the 2M estimate has cost over 2B here. In our case, though, transfering registration is free, and now even renewing our licence is free (used to be 60$)
There's a reason our current government is trying to axe the long-gun registry, but with their second minority government, it's been difficult at best.
Hope you can avoid it.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Mar 10, 2009 12:45:10 GMT -5
Paul, we love our neighbors, and don't take offense.....but the difference here is that individual gun ownership is clearly spelled out in our Constitution as a RIGHT, not a privilege that requires a license, like driving. That's a huge difference. And we realize that once "they" license us, the next elected "they" can revoke the license. Then we'd have our RIGHTS removed, not our privileges.
The fight here WILL happen. I hope it's not too bloody, is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulslund on Mar 11, 2009 22:22:35 GMT -5
Buckrub, no offence taken at all. I often wish the right to bear arms was in our constitution. Actually, what we need in our constituion is property rights...we don't technically have those at all. An example that I've heard of is the government changing the classification of some firearms from restricted to prohibited and then seizing these "new" prohibited weapons...without compensation. It really sucks.
You are right, though, in that the firearms licence I possess gives me the privilege of "owning" a firearm. I can still own a car without a driver's licence, I just can't drive it. There's a big distinction, in my mind.
I'm sure the NRA will be all over this for you guys...I can't see them lying down over this.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Mar 13, 2009 19:14:17 GMT -5
Buckrub, no offence taken at all. I often wish the right to bear arms was in our constitution. Actually, what we need in our constituion is property rights...we don't technically have those at all. An example that I've heard of is the government changing the classification of some firearms from restricted to prohibited and then seizing these "new" prohibited weapons...without compensation. It really sucks. You are right, though, in that the firearms licence I possess gives me the privilege of "owning" a firearm. I can still own a car without a driver's licence, I just can't drive it. There's a big distinction, in my mind. I'm sure the NRA will be all over this for you guys...I can't see them lying down over this. Paul. Actually according to the recent Supreme Court decision on the DC gun ban it is a right! Ozark is right in keeping Obama from replacing the justices that interpret it that way. The four communist sympathizers on the court surely would not support that as a right. It is ridiculous to think that the constitution should change meaning whenever some new idiot is appointed to a lifetime job on the court. That is why it is important to elect a president that vows to only appoint justices to the court that are strict constructionists. Otherwise the constitution becomes a meaningless document that can be manipulated at will by a minority of nine. |
|
