Posted on 03/08/2009 8:53:00 PM PDT by Kackikat
I like that.
Growing up we had a 22 hornet, 30 30, a shotgun and some other rifles used by my Dad to hunt, and I never saw him with a handgun, because he would have used any one of those on an intruder by blowing his head off....and he was former WWII along with my uncles.....teaching me to shoot cans off a fence post a long way off at age 9. So when I refer to hunters, it is those guys who use guns for both purposes.
The best gun control is hitting the bullseye.
amen.
HR 1022 was a bill from the last Congress. AFAIK, a similar bill has not yet been filed in this Congress. But if one is, it will be AWB2, with a vengeance.
Of course they could combine HR 45's language, or parts of it, with the old HR 1022's language and come with a real mo-fo of a bill.
That was last year's bill. This year's HR 1022 is "Tom Lantos Pulmonary Hypertension Research and Education Act of 2009"
I did a quick search, of the bill texts, for this Congress on "semiautomatic" and "weapon", separately, and found no comparable bill has been filed this Congress...YET. Although it's always possible something is hidden in the appropriations act. But If so it's not in the BATFE appropriation, that I looked at.
Yes you did. It's in
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
...
(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term `qualifying firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921
`(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.'.
Actually, by redefinition of assault weapon, primarly by only requiring a single "evil" feature, but also by redefining those features, it actually would have snarfed up A LOT more weapons. Even the "California legal" versions OF AR-15s would not be legal under HR 1022 from the last Congress. The Gun Grabbers are evil, but not stupid. They learn from past failures.
This is what I have for a link, but if you are right and it is old...then I don’t know...will have to research it:
http://www.nraila.org/hr1022.html
I suggest thomas.loc.gov
But be aware that the text search *on that page* only searches the bill summary and status information, not the text of the bills themselves. However you can click on "Try the Advanced Search", and then "Search Bill Text" at the top of the advanced search page. Then you can search the text of the bills themselves. Formerly searching text on the home page searched the entire text of the bills. They sometimes hide things in bills that are not reflected in the summary.
But, it would only take a cut and past from the old 110th Congress HR1022, into a new bill, and bingo, It's Alive" again. I fully expect that to happen, and I check every couple of days to see if it has.
Oh, it's old alright. Notice at the top of the page it says:
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
And then a little further down:
February 13, 2007
The Current Congress is the 111th. Any bills not passed in a Congress have to be refiled in the next one if the sponsor, or anyone else wants them to move forward. This one hasn't been refiled....YET.
Heard that.
So do I.
That was what I meant about they keep putting up these bills, and then sometimes they do just that(take what they really want) and bury it in another bill that’s unrelated.
So glad you are watching that.
PING!!!
Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
This is as serious as the Automatic weapon ban and everyone needs to swamp congress with protest until this goes away. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or pistol unless:
•It is registered
•You are fingerprinted
•You supply a current Driver’s License
•You supply your Social Security #
•You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
•Each update - 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.
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.
This is how the Democrats will lose control of the House.
>>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.<<
Just addressing that part.
It is unconstitutional. Fact is, most of it is. These kind of things can be done regarding driving and using a car on publicly funded highways because, as so many like to point out, driving is a privilege, not a right. Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right.
It is that simple but, of course, once it is tested in the courts it will “appear” to be otherwise - at first.
You said — “STOP HR 1022!”
From what I read on this thread, it was last year’s bill, it was stopped last year, and it does not exist this year, at this present time.
Well, in reading through all this, it appears that the good news is that it has no cosponsors, just the sponsor alone. It’s still “sitting there” but no one is acting on it, at the present time. That could be a good sign... :-)
They know my opinions and are already on the right side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.