H.R. 45 - Federal Gun License! - 2009

Roadking Larry · 01-09-2009, 01:27 PM

I doubt this one will get any traction but it will bear a close watch anyway. It might just be considered "reasonable" by some.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...1sVfV8L:e6813:

Quote:

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

Quote:

a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--

So basically we wold have to ask AG Holder if we can own a gun.

Many little nasties in the Bill, records of sales and transfers that have to be done by a licensed dealer,
Could be read to mean that no one under 18 can have ANY access to a firearm, no exceptiosn for hunting, competition.
Storage requirements.

Just the first shot but lets keep our eyes open.

okiexd40 · 01-09-2009, 01:52 PM

It reads like an Illinois FOID (and no surprise considering who proposed it):

Quote:

(c) Form of License- A firearm license issued under this section shall be in the form of a tamper-resistant card, and shall include--

(1) the photograph of the licensed individual submitted with the application;

(2) the address of the licensed individual;

(3) the date of birth of the licensed individual;

(4) a license number, unique to each licensed individual;

(5) the expiration date of the license, which shall be the date that is 5 years after the initial anniversary of the date of birth of the licensed individual following the date on which the license is issued

"Reasonable restrictions" here we come!

Veggie Meat · 01-09-2009, 02:16 PM

Just a quick skimming, and I don't see a provision for firearms which are in possession previous to the Act. I sense a possibility of not issuing licenses and then proceeding to confiscate arms as evidence that you are in possession of firearms without a license.

Roadking Larry · 01-09-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veggie Meat

Just a quick skimming, and I don't see a provision for firearms which are in possession previous to the Act. I sense a possibility of not issuing licenses and then proceeding to confiscate arms as evidence that you are in possession of firearms without a license.

I always looked at Bills with an eye towards the worst possible interpretation of the wording. That might be a bit of a reach but not out of the realm of possibility.

NikatKimber · 01-09-2009, 02:53 PM

Or attaching a large "processing" fee to get the current guns registered.

berettaman · 01-09-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikatKimber

Or attaching a large "processing" fee to get the current guns registered.

That will be some of the 3 million jobs the Great Father will create.They will need some people to take on this task.

Bierhunter · 01-09-2009, 07:27 PM

It's just so sad that all of my guns were lost in that tragic boating accident. Guess I have no need for a federal license. oh well.

I always wondered.

What if...

What if, the feds passed a law requiring licensing to own a gun; but Oklahoma said "BS! It's not required in our State."

Kind of like Texas and Oklahoma recognizing each other's CCL, but the Feds saying 'no'.

dutchwrangler · 01-09-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bierhunter

It's just so sad that all of my guns were lost in that tragic boating accident. Guess I have no need for a federal license. oh well.

I always wondered.

What if...

What if, the feds passed a law requiring licensing to own a gun; but Oklahoma said "BS! It's not required in our State."

Kind of like Texas and Oklahoma recognizing each other's CCL, but the Feds saying 'no'.

Think "War of Northern Aggression". States have no rights other than what the federal government allows, just like we the people have no rights.

Veggie Meat · 01-10-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bierhunter

What if, the feds passed a law requiring licensing to own a gun; but Oklahoma said "BS! It's not required in our State."

Kind of like Texas and Oklahoma recognizing each other's CCL, but the Feds saying 'no'.

State law only trumps Federal law if the State law has more regulation. Its like how Federal law says I can carry a gun onto an elementary, secondary, or vocational-technical school campus if licensed by the State to carry a gun, but State law says I can't even lock it in my car.

I can see two possible Constitutional arguments being made against this bill: 2nd Ammendment and States' Rights. The Attorney General must certify either a Licensing system if State law requires the Licensing system to meet the requirements set forth in the Act, or a Record of Sale system where the Records of Sale must be submitted to the head of the State agency in charge of Records of Sale within seven days of receipt.

But then again, who cares about the Constitution anymore? It's an outdated document with no application to modern America.

BurkLee · 01-10-2009, 05:07 PM

I'm not a Political Science major but a House Resolution doesn't do anything, right?

Kind of a "official statement" kind of thing?

def: A document that is the expression of the Assembly. House resolutions are generally used to amend house rules or create committees.

Veggie Meat · 01-10-2009, 06:30 PM

H.R. stands for House of Representatives

HRes stands for House Resolution

H.R. is the citing prefix for a bill originating from the House of Representatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPO Access

The following abbreviations stand for types of legislative documents in the Congressional Bills databases. They are included as part of the bill number in the identification code.

H.R. House Bill
S. Senate Bill
H.J.Res. House Joint Resolution
S.J.Res. Senate Joint Resolution
H.Con.Res. House Concurrent Resolution
S.Con.Res. Senate Concurrent Resolution
H.Res. House Simple Resolution
S.Res. Senate Simple Resolution

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/glossary.html

BurkLee · 01-10-2009, 06:39 PM

Gotcha......

skyydiver · 01-10-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veggie Meat

State law only trumps Federal law if the State law has more regulation. Its like how Federal law says I can carry a gun onto an elementary, secondary, or vocational-technical school campus if licensed by the State to carry a gun, but State law says I can't even lock it in my car.

Mmm. I could be wrong, but I think the "Gun Free Zones" crap is Federal. So we have both state ad federal laws against that specificity.

Veggie Meat · 01-10-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyydiver

Mmm. I could be wrong, but I think the "Gun Free Zones" crap is Federal. So we have both state ad federal laws against that specificity.

You're correct in that Federal law does cover "Gun Free Zones", and that we have State laws also. But the point was that Federal law does not trump State law unless the State law does not address the topic in a more strict way. Federal law is basically a standard that State law must meet or exceed.

I'm not saying you're wrong or arguing with you, because you're not wrong. I'm just trying to clarify how that seems to work.

---
ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by United States Code Title 18 §922q

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess
a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable
cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a
license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license;
(iii) that is--
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that
is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.

okiexd40 · 01-14-2009, 05:37 PM

David Codrea has some thoughts on H.R. 45 in today's Gun Rights Examiner column:Kill (the) Bill

Quote:

Does that mean what I think it does? The stated purpose was limited in scope to "licensing for purchasers," but the fine print includes guns currently owned?

I guess if you're not going to let a little thing like "shall not be infringed" bother you, why would Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution's proscription that "No... ex post facto Law shall be passed" slow you down?