House Resolution HR 45 Proposed - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: House Resolution HR 45 Proposed

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Representatives written, oppostition noted to both.
    M1 Garand, Kimber Custom Carry II, Ruger P-95, Mossberg Persuader 12ga., Charles Daly 12ga(My gobbler gobbler)

  3. #12
    I have contacted my reps, as well as both of my senators regarding both this and the Holder nomination.

  4. #13
    gpbarth Guest
    All my letters and e-mails are out, too. And it's in the Declaration of Independence that we are obliged to alter or abolish any government when it starts to tear apart our freedoms (see my sig).

    Here's the entire paragraph:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    People tell me all the time that this is idiotic, that the military would quickly suppress any uprising. But they do not consider that the military is historically for our freedoms, not against them. If the time ever comes when we have to fight for our freedom from within, I suspect that a lot of the military will be fighting for us and not against us. And also remember, the 2nd Amendment hasn't been butchered YET. Get out there and prepare yourselves before it's too late.

  5. Sample Letter to DEFEAT H.R. 45- Mail Out ASAP!!!

    Here is a sample letter I urge you all to copy, modify to make it personal, and then send to all your elected state Senators and Representatives. It will take a FLOOD of such letters to sway some of them, but a grass-roots effort will be required to defeat H.R. 45. Get writing, we haven't much time.



    The Honorable Patrick McHenry

    United States House of Representatives

    224 Cannon House Office Building

    Washington, D.C. 20515-3310

    Dear Representative:

    I am writing to bring to your attention my concerns regarding H.R. 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

    H.R. 45 would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed.

    Representative McHenry, all firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers (FFLs) currently require a background check and completion of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) form 4437. In addition, all handgun purchases require a handgun permit issued by a citizen’s Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO). This in itself requires a waiting period and a thorough background check. These background checks include mental health background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The current system is appropriate and necessary, and no further licensing is required, particularly for older firearms, such as the .22 squirrel rifle I inherited from my deceased great-uncle when I was a child.

    H.R. 45 requires the applicant to be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family.

    Fingerprinting is unnecessary, because BATFE will already have a record of a citizen’s personal information due to the background check and form 4437. In addition, the Second Amendment gives “the people” of America the right to keep and bear arms, and the Government should not prohibit law-abiding citizens from being able to use firearms in their own homes to defend themselves and their families.

    The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25.

    Many United States citizens are, or have been, under medical treatment for various psychiatric conditions, such as depression or anxiety. This does not mean they are unfit to safely and legally possess a firearm. Both the CLEO handgun permit application and BATFE form 4437 specifically check for whether an applicant has ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution. All involuntary mental institution commitments (in which a person is medically determined to be a danger to himself or to others) result in a person being listed with NICS, and thus those individuals automatically fail the current background checks and cannot purchase firearms . This is as it should be, and the current system is already adequate to prevent these people from purchasing firearms. No further disclosure of confidential, psychiatric records is necessary.

    The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked.

    Once a person has passed the necessary background checks, why should their right to keep their firearms be jeopardized, and why should they have to pay additional money to maintain those firearms? This amounts to an unfair, additional tax, and citizens already pay sales tax on firearms when they purchase them.

    Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check.

    Firearms sales are, again, already subject to a thorough and appropriate background check.

    In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense.

    Again, this directly conflicts with the Second Amendment, which states that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

    A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

    This Bill would effectively treat law-abiding citizens like criminals. Criminals are the ones upon whom the full regulatory force of the United States Government should fall, not law-abiding citizens.

    Representative McHenry, it is important to me to inform you of my feelings regarding H.R. 45. I ask for your kind attention and consideration in this matter. As an active member of my church and community, and as a member of the National Rifle Association, I am counting upon you to stand up for the rights of decent, law-abiding citizens.

    Thank you kindly for your time.

    Sincerely Yours,

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Inland Empire

    Question H.R. 45: Addressing the Total $$$ Impact.

    H.R. 45 is an obvious way to make legal gun ownership almost impossible, and useless for self protection, or recreation/hunting just as untenable. So to get the attention of your representative in Congress or the Senate, it may pack more of a punch if communication with them outlined the following, every politicians favorite subject: MONEY, future votes, campaign funding, kick-backs and lucrative contracts!
    Lets take a look at what HR 45 will do if it becomes law.
    1. Millions of jobs lost in the U.S. gun manufacture companies, sales (domestic and exports), ranges closed, and taxes unpaid by manufacturers (who buy raw materials to make all the products involved in the civilian weapons market), the vendors (closed), the clubs/ranges closed and users now criminalized. A ex-gun owner does not work hard all day paying taxes or voting inside a prison, which would require more hiring/training more guards/admin staff & ancillary staff plus building more jails to lock up more millions. Any idea how much it costs just to keep one person incarcerated for a year? Multiply that by millions more. Who pays? The state that locks 'em up or the feds who do it. Where does that money come from? Health care, education, infrastructure upkeep or expansion, and all the other things that keep any state or the feds from working & fighting wars.
    2. The rise in prison population that would increase with non-compliance, meaning more prisons built, skilled/educated people rotting in jails.
    3. The cost of untold millions of bankrupt gun owners, foreclosed homes, repo-ed assets, and much more unemployment.
    4. The sheer magnitude of loss in exports of U.S. made weapons for non-military use, to any nation who uses our weapons for their police forces, and that is a HUGE market.
    5. The effect that the loss of hundreds of millions/billions of dollars spent on the whole domestic weapons industry from making to selling them would weaken our economy even further.
    6. The cost of law enforcement and judicial actions for those who were arrested/jailed for illegal (any?) gun ownership.
    Moaning about what it does to a single person, or even a group of people is easy to dismiss as trivial, presenting what disarming America will do to the financial big-picture, the economy (already hurting) gets raised eye-brows and frowns in DC and in every state capitol political HQ's.
    Those figures that go into the negative hi-end billion$ DO get diplomats attention especially if it effects their chances of keeping their plush/powerful jobs and fancy mansions.
    When an elected rep sees that nation-wide the socio-economic impact of rushing into the arms of the Brady Bunch could equal what a major bank (like Bank of America) folding would do to an economy already in recession, or how it would affect the voters in their constituencies, then how many sponsors or "Yes" votes will Holt get from both GOP's and Democrats alike?
    I wish I had the figures but someone out there could work the numbers and present it in jobs and money lost that closes another huge American manufacturing industry, sales industry and end user enforcement this HR would co$t. The idea that taking guns away from hundreds of millions of legal law abiding folks stops crimes is falling on deaf ears in the Brady Bunch, but when those same rich lobbyists find their quality of life takes a nose-dive when our GNP falls because we lose yet another major industry, millions of jobs, increase our prison population beyond capacity, and the tens of billions in cash this HR-45 would cause, they may not be so adamant about driving themselves to work in a broken-down Honda Civic versus being chauffeured in a limo by their staff and surrounded by fancy trappings & servants. Maybe this needs to go to a cost analyst who could show why the minor damage (in financial terms) done by unlawful use of guns per year pales in economic disaster to lost jobs, repo-ed and broken institutions from the gun makers/vendors, ranges & livelihoods of the skilled mechanics/craftsmen who make them, the stores who sell them, the ranges that are in every major town/city in the USA, to the sportsman or law abiding gun owners if they all rush into taking our 2nd away. If any patron could crunch the numbers or has faster access to doing the math than me, feel free to slap up an estimate onto this post. A realistic one would be useful, 'billions' means little, $250,000,000,000 gets attention on a letter or e-mail to your reps. Feel free to send this to anyone who could put a dollar value on this one HR. Stick your name on it and e-mail it to any pro-2nd (got a lot to lose) person, company, organization or society. I plan on shooting it off to plenty who may see that H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) as changes even Obama may not want to be an incentive to force onto the voters who just elected him into office with promises of better times ahead if we work hard together.


  7. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Panhandle, Idaho
    This part of the actual bill is the bottom line.....the feds will take over gun regulation nationwide.

    (2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.
    Here's the actual bill. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    If the feds take over regulation, our state constitutions will become moot.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Inland Empire

    Thumbs down Good 4 them!

    Yo Stiofan,
    You are right, and it is the feds who stand to lose the the most if the multi-billion dollar gun industry folds because meeting that unrealistic goal is not practical/possible & they know that, it is banning guns cloaked in a safety HR. Thinking outside the box is the message they need to absorb, cost to law/HR 45 enforcement, shut down gun everything, all the factors I already outlined and lose billions, add millions unemployed put on the dole and up the prison pop. Or let it be and it costs a whole lot less + generates jobs, sales, taxe$ and so much more. Out of this thread as it seems the feds will do whatever they deem lawful and singing: 'God Save the Queen' on my way out. U.K. gun-free stinking-thinking.


  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    somewhere in north texas


    it is tmefor Texas to load te cannons like Col. W.B. Travis. maybe we should succede from the union.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Kempner, Tx
    The Canadian gun registration program that was supposed to cost about $5 million wound up costing over a billion and their gun ownership is what small percentage of ours?

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Battle Creek Mi
    This is going to be a long 4 years.....

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts