Proposed Federal Firearms Licensing Bill

February 17, 2009

Proposed Federal Firearms Licensing Bill

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 11:46 am

US Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-IL-1) has introduced H.R. 45. It’s intent is “To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. ” The entire text of H.R. 45, also cited as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009”, is here.

Comments (12)

12 Comments

Oh, lord! Whoever said the Democrats were gun-grabbers? Must have been some disinformation I read somewhere…

Comment by Dan — February 17, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Rush has a colorful past. He went AWOL in 1968 and helped form the Illinois chapter of the Black Pnather Party, so what better progression than to be a Democrat congressman today. He is also the knucklehead who last year said that Obama’s replacement in the senate MUST be Black, apparently no other qualifications were required, according to Rush. Rush introduced basically the same draconian, onerous bill last year and it never even got a committee vote. Last year of the 435 members of the house, less than 20 cosponsored the bill. This year’s version of the bill was introduced this on Jan. 6 and to date has no cosponsors.

Comment by Will Penny — February 17, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Dan and Will,

You just don’t understand. This is part of Obama’s stimulus package. The decisions he and his cast of clowns are making are going to dramatically stimulate the firearms industry and increase NRA’s membership many fold. Or maybe Rush and Burris are going to team up and do a radio talk show.

Comment by Bill — February 17, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Whoever said the Democrats were gun-grabbers?-dan
This year’s version of the bill was introduced this on Jan. 6 and to date has no cosponsors.-Will Penny

dan, can you explain your logical progression from a bill submitted by 1 congressman with no cosponsors to “the Democrats” being gun-grabbers? i must have missed the part where the other 255 democrats supported this? thanks.

Comment by reagan — February 17, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
My question is, “Whoever said the Democrats were gun-grabbers?” Try not to divert the discussion into some petty bitch session against me and answer the question.

Comment by Dan — February 17, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `qualifying firearm’–
`(A) means–

`(i) any handgun; or

`(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

`(B) does not include any antique.’.

So….. a hunting rifle with a total capacity of five bullets (in a “clip”) is subject to this law? And so is the revolvers people keep for home protection? Looks like the only things he left out are shotguns and bolt or lever action rifles…

Comment by Spencer — February 18, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Oh, don’t forget that they get to inspect any place that a “qualifying firearm” is stored anytime they want during business hours. That would be your home, of course.

Comment by Spencer — February 18, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
I’m sure pro-gun groups like the NRA will be watching this. As I recall, the last time Rush introduced this bill, Rahm Emanuel cosponsored it. The absence of cosponsors this time around suggests it will suffer the same fate as before.

Comment by Bill — February 18, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Pittsburg Tribune-Review

Candidates’ gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote

April 2, 2008

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Comment by Pariah — February 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
2003 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.

35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
a. handguns?

While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

b. assault weapons?

Yes.

c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?

I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.

36. Do you support legislation
a. mandating background checks of purchasers of weapons at gun shows, through the internet and through print advertisements?

Yes.

b. increasing penalties for illegal resale of weapons?

Yes.”

Comment by Pariah — February 18, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
“Whoever said the Democrats were gun-grabbers?”–dan

i didn’t realize you were asking a serious question since it reads like a rhetorical one. the answer: the nra and, many segments of the republican party (though usually not big city republicans ala guilliani). once again, taking an individual and event and carrying out to a stereotypical blanket statement is the type of fakllacy that creates fear and perpetuates ignorance. bill, i agree, thi nonsensical legislation will very likely suffer the fate of its predecessor.

dan, one other thing, if people disagree with you, or ask questions, do you always perceive it as “some petty bitch session”? is that how rational discussion works?

Comment by reagan — February 19, 2009 @ 9:31 am
That’s how it works with you, reagan.

Comment by Dan — February 19, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.