Search Me!

Think about it...

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Just Passing this along FYI

This might or might not be important to you. If it is, go read the bill(s). ----- Senate Bill SB-2099/House Bill HR45. Concerning the Blair-Holt proposed legislation: Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.. In November, our president promised he was not going after our Second Amendment rights. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know. Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply. ----- And: Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar. 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 all 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 -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. If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.


Linnea said...

I don't see the problem with the 2nd one. Just because they COULD come inspect doesn't mean they WILL. The IRS has the right to audit every penny you spend, but unless there's a glaring problem they generally don't. If you have nothing to hide about your reasons for wanting a gun, there should be no problem with the personal registration. (It's not like they can't get all that info on you anyway if they really want it.) And frankly, it sure as hell wouldn't hurt a few of the "Praise God and pass the ammunition" folks to take some responsibility for the guns left lying around - OFTEN LOADED - in the reach of children or others. That is NEVER ok. I know you are one of the people who understands gun safety (where to point, when to load/unload), but unfortunately too many people who feel entitled to carry a gun don't know or don't care about safety issues.
Besides, THEY'RE NOT MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO OWN A GUN!!! Only to be in possession of an unregistered weapon! Not a big deal unless you want to be an extremist doomsayer about 'personal rights' and such. Those rights are yours because you live in the USA. Big catch-22 there, eh? If you want to have guns - hell, have as many as you want! - just register them, don't be a psycho wanting to slaughter your neighborhood, and handle them safely! Sheesh.

Jim Handcock said...

The trouble with registration, as evidenced in England and in Nazi Germany, is that a few years after it was put into practice, the governments used those registration lists to confiscate the weapons.

History tells of the fate of unarmed Jews in Germany, current news items tell us of the incredible increase in home invasions and violent crimes in England that resulted AFTER the private citizens were disarmed.

No, we have no more reason to trust the discretion of our government than they did.

PS: Political posts I make on this blog get deleted after a while, so if this whole post disappears it was nothing personal, it's just that I'd rather preserve the fun stuff & the bio for posterity.



Linnea said...

It's all good, sweets. I rarely go back to re-read these anyway. :)

Just expressing my opinion. You often post the most radical views on situations; whether you agree or not, you are promoting the agenda of the "Chicken Little" crew. I mostly leave you to it, but once in a while I feel it's over the top so I say something.

Also, this is not the 1940's. Guns are much more efficient and powerful... and widespread in non-registered format. You really think that - EVEN IF, and that's a big fat skeptical IF, the govt were to try a gun confiscation roundup - there wouldn't be millions of Americans who would throw a fit? We're not a monarchy nor a communist state. They'd have most of the country (forgive the pun) up in arms if they pulled anything like that. And no, I don't think it would happen, much less work. Even if the presidential seat is also the Commander-In-Chief, I'm willing to bet he'd have a virtual (if not actual) military coup to show for it.

Anyhoo, read my comments, consider them or ignore them, and please feel free to delete the whole thing when you're ready. :)

<3 as always.

Jim Handcock said...

Sheesh, Poofy.

Most of our modern arms that are available to civilians are just minor mods of the ones used in WWII or before - the 1930's & 1940's. And most use LESS powerful ammunition.

Do some research. :P

I agree with you that the Gov PROBABLY wouldn't, and possibly couldn't, do the disarming, but look at California.

They made folks register certain firearms, then passed laws making ownership of said weapons illegal, then used the registration info to enforce the new laws.

Better to not let a toe in the door, IMHO.

Jim Handcock said...


A few years ago, Australia did exactly the same thing -- registration, then ban, then confiscate. Forgot to mention that.

Linnea said...

More efficient was the main point there, my bad, I actually knew about the less powerful ammo and should have known better. (Since you're the one who taught me about it, heh.)

I have to admit, I can see your point about CA and such. I doubt it would be an issue up here, if at all, honestly. However... worst case is guns are outlawed for a few years until we have a new president. Things get reversed and in the meanwhile, gun traders make HUGE money in the black market. I still don't see how they could rationalize it from a constitutional standpoint (right to bear arms and all that, even if they're registered) although god knows politicians and attorneys have managed to warp things in all kinds of ways previously...

I still think registration is a good idea overall. >.<

Jim Handcock said...

Gun control advocates, realizing the problems of gun confiscation, have always used the "boil a frog" approach.

Drop a frog into hot water, he jumps out. Put him in a "normal" environment and then gradually add heat and he will happily sit there till he dies.

The gun control fight is a matter of two opposing views fighting for control of the thermostat. I just try to encourage twisting the heat down a bit.

I read a good article the other day comparing 1906 London, where all gentlemen went armed and it was touted as the safest city in the world, to 2006 London, where the citizenry can't even own most knives and the crime rate is skyrocketing.

I agree with R. Heinlein: An armed society is a polite society. And usually a safe society.

Thanks for the discussion, something I rarely engage in on here.

Oh -- what is the pay in cakes or cookies for attending "Dracula?"


Jean&Vic said...

I cannot see having registered fire arms as a good thing in any country where the citizens are free. Why you might ask? I know people who come from places where the right to keep and carry has been revoked, and they do not have the recourse after the guns are gone to get them back. if you allow absolute power (in this case to the fed, or anti gun establishments) then the possibility of getting your guns back after they are gone is slim to none. Historically speaking, I challenge anyone to namke one place where the right to defend yourself has been taken away and then been given back by the same government. I have never seen it ever in print (even with the current push for revisionist history in any given country) or ever heard of it happening anywhere in the world. If there are examples, I ask, please educate me of one, as I would like to see or hear of anything that might pertain here.
On one note, I can give you a story that might interest both of you though. there was one instance where the English government did make a fire arm for the people of one of the African nations with the intent of letting the public keep and bear a long gun. for the specific purpose of defense against a rampant bull elephants. it was a muzzle loaded 80 caliber gun. Now this was not 100 years ago, but much more recently, and why not some thing a little more able to deliver more than one shot at a time? They wanted something that could not be used against the government, or it's equipment. . .