HR 45 - Annie get your guns!

fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

CAGiversary!
Feedback
82 (100%)
Dafoomie made a passing reference to this.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45

I know reading is hard, but I'll try to point out some parts.

Add your own or disagree if you like.

"(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting."

I found this to be a funny finding for Congress to have.

"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.’."

Basically anything that was made after the runup to World War I.

"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--"

Great. New laws. In Indiana, I'm not a criminal for having an unregistered gun.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_in.htm

Now, everybody knows you could have marijuana in your possession if you had a stamp for it, right? However, you couldn't apply for a marijuana stamp without the pot in your possession. They did the same thing to ban automatic weapons. Would this be the case for handguns?

"a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;"

I guess kids can't go deer hunting anymore. If somebody stores their gun in a safe and their teenage kids break into it one day, somebody becomes a criminal now, right?

"a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--"

And a test. Can I put "Certified gun owner" on my resume?

"In General- The Attorney General shall issue a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an application that meets the requirements of section 102 of this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the individual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm."

Now, by the Attorney General, that means the nation's attorney general, right? That means 1 dude(tte) out of 300 million is going to put every other duty on hold to review my application for a .22 revolver that might have been purchased 20 years ago every 5 years.

"(2) the individual shall promptly return the license to the Attorney General."

So, I have to drive to Washington and personally hand over my firearm license if I punch somebody in the face a little too hard? If I'm too busy being in jail, am I still guilty of violating this act?

"(A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;"
If gun was in a locked safe and the child unlocked it, when is the firearm no longer secured? Is that before or after the child obtained access. I would assume unlocking the safe means the firearm is no longer secured before the child obtained access by means of picking up the gun.

"‘(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the official duties of the person in that capacity;"
So, it is OK if a kid is riding along Barney Fife, right?



"‘(C) the child uses the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or more other persons; or"
And if not, the person is now a criminal, too.



"‘(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.’."

So, I have to keep my guns at the titty bar now?

"In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."

Uh, 4th Amendment? Of course, it is just 1 dude(tte) out of 300 million, right? The AG wouldn't empowered somebody to enter a person's house for no other reason than that person owning a gun.

"(a) In General- This Act and the amendments made by this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State, or prevent a State or political subdivision of that State from enacting any provision of law regulating or prohibiting conduct with respect to firearms, except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency."

I think that means this law wins when it contradicts a state law or the exact opposite. Anybody got a coin to flip?

...

My general idea is that the law is generally unenforceable.

People who have gone hunting for the last twenty years suddenly become criminals if they forget to register property they have owned and operated for 20 years. Really? Will harassing these people improve society?

Keeping kids away sounds like a good idea, but kids can be trained to handle and to respect guns long before they are 18. Right now, a gun in the same house as my 3 year old is a terrible idea. When he is thirteen, he and Caitlyn need to be on their way to learning how to use guns.

Here's a scenario I see (yes, it is tilted.):

During a home invasion, the head of the household (read: adult) pulls out a gun from the back of a bedroom closet and scares off the intruder without firing a shot. The head reports the incident to the police in an attempt to track the home intruder. Under this act, the head goes to prison for up to two years.

Here's another scenario I see:

You buy a gun and fill out all of the paperwork. Your gun is in your bedroom behind a locked door. Some friends with a kid come over for a BBQ. The Attorney General's surrogate, The King of England, comes over to verify your gun paperwork. Your company is outside eating burgers. You unlock your bedroom door and pull out your gun and its paperwork for the KOE to inspect. You're guilty because there is a child on your property and your gun isn't secured.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']"a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;"

I guess kids can't go deer hunting anymore. If somebody stores their gun in a safe and their teenage kids break into it one day, somebody becomes a criminal now, right?[/quote]
I've never met anyone that hunts deer with a hand gun.

"a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--"

And a test. Can I put "Certified gun owner" on my resume?
Click to expand...
Sure. Put it right next to the line that has your driver's license number, which attests to the completion at the time of application of a written driving examination, which tests the knowledge and ability of the application regarding-- ;)

"In General- The Attorney General shall issue a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an application that meets the requirements of section 102 of this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the individual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm."

Now, by the Attorney General, that means the nation's attorney general, right? That means 1 dude(tte) out of 300 million is going to put every other duty on hold to review my application for a .22 revolver that might have been purchased 20 years ago every 5 years.
Click to expand...
That's one of those legalese lines put in that actually requires the AG to fulfill the request if the request meets the requirements, specifically prohibiting the AG from sitting on it.
"(A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;"
If gun was in a locked safe and the child unlocked it, when is the firearm no longer secured? Is that before or after the child obtained access. I would assume unlocking the safe means the firearm is no longer secured before the child obtained access by means of picking up the gun.
Click to expand...
I was a lover of all things involving locking mechanisms as an early teenager. When I found out my newly minted stepdad had a gun safe, I remember being extremely excited at the opportunity to try my hand at what was purported to be designed specifically to stop a person just like me. I took one look at that thing and never even bothered. It was uncrackable by a mortal.

I don't think having a device such as that is unreasonable.
"‘(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.’."

So, I have to keep my guns at the titty bar now?
Click to expand...
Another legalese statement meant to allow judges and juries wiggle room based on the standard of "reasonable".
"In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."

Uh, 4th Amendment? Of course, it is just 1 dude(tte) out of 300 million, right? The AG wouldn't empowered somebody to enter a person's house for no other reason than that person owning a gun.
Click to expand...
The "distribution in commerce" is the important part of the sentence. Private residences are not included.
"(a) In General- This Act and the amendments made by this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State, or prevent a State or political subdivision of that State from enacting any provision of law regulating or prohibiting conduct with respect to firearms, except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency."

I think that means this law wins when it contradicts a state law or the exact opposite. Anybody got a coin to flip?
Click to expand...
Other way around. Another ugly legalese statement that basically is saying that if one part of the act doesn't jibe with something a state has done, it doesn't invalidate the rest of the act. It's one of those relatively benign contract law statements that make no sense on the face of it but really aren't as bad as they look.

I think.
 
Not nearly enough anger in your response.

[quote name='speedracer']I've never met anyone that hunts deer with a hand gun.[/QUOTE]

My father-in-law shot a deer behind the ear with a .22 pistol. His head is mounted on the fil's wall. On the other hand, I've never met anybody hunting deer with a bow and arrow.

"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:"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html
"The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm"

I'm pretty sure any rifle, shotgun or pistol is included.

[quote name='speedracer'] Sure. Put it right next to the line that has your driver's license number, which attests to the completion at the time of application of a written driving examination, which tests the knowledge and ability of the application regarding-- ;)[/QUOTE]

You have to pass exams for privileges, not rights.

[quote name='speedracer'] That's one of those legalese lines put in that actually requires the AG to fulfill the request if the request meets the requirements, specifically prohibiting the AG from sitting on it. [/QUOTE]

How many requests can the Attorney General approve in 1 day? Even if the AG spent a second on an application, that's only 7 million approvals in a country where 200 million approvals will be required. I don't think this act has a grandfather clause. I hope I'm wrong.

[quote name='speedracer'] I was a lover of all things involving locking mechanisms as an early teenager. When I found out my newly minted stepdad had a gun safe, I remember being extremely excited at the opportunity to try my hand at what was purported to be designed specifically to stop a person just like me. I took one look at that thing and never even bothered. It was uncrackable by a mortal.

I don't think having a device such as that is unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

We're back to owning a gun being a right and not a privilege.
A gun safe is nice if you don't intend to use it in the immediate future.
However, certain situations such as China collapsing our economy by requesting 1% of their money back or hurricanes rhyming with ballerina might require a homeowner to sit in his or her own living room or roof with an openly displayed weapon so looters will steal somebody else's property.

[quote name='speedracer'] Another legalese statement meant to allow judges and juries wiggle room based on the standard of "reasonable".[/QUOTE]

So, it's something used to convict minorities?

[quote name='speedracer'] The "distribution in commerce" is the important part of the sentence. Private residences are not included.[/QUOTE]

If I buy one of my father-in-law's shotguns legally in his house, does my father-in-law waive his 4th amendment rights forever?

[quote name='speedracer'] Other way around. Another ugly legalese statement that basically is saying that if one part of the act doesn't jibe with something a state has done, it doesn't invalidate the rest of the act. It's one of those relatively benign contract law statements that make no sense on the face of it but really aren't as bad as they look. [/QUOTE]

Ehhhhh... If the state has a law allowing Bubba to have his rifle in his pickup truck, he is still in violation of this federal law, right?

...

What I see with this bill is some bullshit backdoor attempt to nullify the 2nd Amendment. I know some people don't like it. Instead of crap like this, they need repeal the 2nd Amendment. Then, gun ownership (and use) can be treated as a privilege that car ownership (and use) is.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']We'd be safer if they taught gun safety and basic marksmanship in public schools.[/QUOTE]

The kids out there killing eachother are not in schools.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
My father-in-law shot a deer behind the ear with a .22 pistol. His head is mounted on the fil's wall. On the other hand, I've never met anybody hunting deer with a bow and arrow.[/QUOTE]

Shit, here in Michigan a lot of people hunt with a bow. However, real men hunt with swords.

zoom.gif
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']The kids out there killing eachother are not in schools[/QUOTE]
And their guns are already illegal. The solution is to make my gun illegal?

Those people mostly just kill each other, the only way to address that is by eliminating the drug culture. New gun laws aren't going to change anything there.
 
You want to teach kids to be better shots? Seriously? Plenty of people are taught how to safely and effectively use guns, but still commit crimes, i fail to see how teaching it in schools would help anything.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']On the other hand, I've never met anybody hunting deer with a bow and arrow.[/QUOTE]

I've known tons of people who hunt with bow and arrow. Hell I did myself back in high school, though I never killed one--missed the couple I got a shot at.

My dad and brother still bow hunt every year. Hell, they have a whole bow only season, so tons of people do it as it's a way to get more deer and more meet in the freezer.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You want to teach kids to be better shots? Seriously? Plenty of people are taught how to safely and effectively use guns, but still commit crimes, i fail to see how teaching it in schools would help anything.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't get that either.

Making more people comfortable with guns would at best have no effect on firearm crime, and at worst increase it slightly as you have more people who know how to use a gun and thus can feel more comfortable using one in a crime.

I don't see anyone deciding not to use a firearm in a crime because they were trained how to use them in school. The only benefit you would get is maybe fewer accidental shootings if kids are taught about gun safety.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I know people hunt deer with bow. I haven't met anybody who hunts deer with bow. Yeesh.[/QUOTE]

Oh I didn't mean it that way. More just surprised that you knew people who hunted deer at all, but no bow hunters since most I know do both.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And their guns are already illegal. The solution is to make my gun illegal?

Those people mostly just kill each other, the only way to address that is by eliminating the drug culture. New gun laws aren't going to change anything there.[/QUOTE]

How would it make your gun illegal? Get your gun license and register your guns and you'll be good to go. Don't act like it's something that's impossible.

Any why all the love for handguns anyway? Shotguns are way more efficient at protecting your property and result in less collateral damage but gun nuts want to pretend that a handgun is the only way to stop a robbery.

One positive I see for this bill is that it will make buying and selling guns more like buying and selling cars. You have to go the DMV and register your new car and buy insurance. Now, you can buy and sell guns at garage sales in some states and that does no one any good.

You also neglect to mention that illegal guns always start out with a legal sale at a gun shop. Drug dealers aren't importing guns by the crate through the border. They're buying guns from middle men that buy them by the boatload in states like Virginia. If you stiffen the penalties for the middle men, maybe the supply of illegal firearms dries up. It's a big maybe but a better option than eliminating drug culture.

Also, it's damn near impossible to eliminate drug culture without legalizing everything. I'd say that it would be a good thing with marijuana but I can't name one other drug that would be good to have on the streets.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I know people hunt deer with bow. I haven't met anybody who hunts deer with bow. Yeesh.[/QUOTE]

ted%20nugent%20hunting.png


And don't forget...the nuge....dudes.
 
[quote name='depascal22']
Any why all the love for handguns anyway? Shotguns are way more efficient at protecting your property and result in less collateral damage but gun nuts want to pretend that a handgun is the only way to stop a robbery.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the argument is for the concealed weapon carrying to protect themselves in public, be able to play the hero when the see a street robbery or commercial robbery happening etc.

I vehemently disagree with that (don't really support banning concealed carry either though), as I think it causes more harm than good in public probably. But there's no good studies on that so it's just conjecture and not worth arguing over.

As I've said before, having been robbed at gun point, I can say that in most cases you'd never have a chance to get to your concealed gun before you had a gun in your face. I suppose you could shoot the person in the back as they're getting away. But I personally don't see:

1. The property I lose--a couple hundred bucks at most with cell phone, tiny bit of cash in wallet (who needs cash these days?) etc. isn't worth the risk of facing return fire if I miss or the person is just wounded rather than killed--which is a high possibility with a moving target and adrenaline flowing even for people with tons of range practice.

2. Not worth killing someone over losing some property. Not likely to have a chance to use the gun to prevent the robbery/protect yourself up front when lethal force is justified, and I can't justify it after the fact when I'm no longer in danger.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But there's no good studies on that so it's just conjecture and not worth arguing over.[/QUOTE]

On concealed carry effects? No shit. Not my area at all, but that's really shocking to hear.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']On concealed carry effects? No shit. Not my area at all, but that's really shocking to hear.[/QUOTE]

I'm not an expert on it either. But I've never seen any good studies on the effects of concealed carry on crime. Just a bunch of very weak studies correlating crime rates in cities or states with more lenient concealed carry laws vs. those with more restrictive.

And even those seem to have mixed results--just like anything there's anti-gun folk touting higher numbers of accidental shootings, crimes of passion shootings etc. And the NRA types touting lower crime rates etc.

When it's all probably spurious. But that's the nature of the issue as it's hard to do a quasi-experimental study of the topic (best you can do is try to match cities on various characteristics and control for as many variables as possible). And I've not seen good studies trying to do that. But again it's not my area either, so maybe there is something recent out there.

And of course you can't do a randomized experiment since you can't randomize gun policy across cities, counties etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, the argument is for the concealed weapon carrying to protect themselves in public, be able to play the hero when the see a street robbery or commercial robbery happening etc.
[/QUOTE]

Don't you need a license to carry a concealed weapon in the states that allow it? That's OK but a general license to carry is bad?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Don't you need a license to carry a concealed weapon in the states that allow it? That's OK but a general license to carry is bad?[/QUOTE]

Oh I agree. I have no problem with having all guns registered, requiring licenses etc. personally.

I don't think it's that much of a hassle as long as it's a simple application and the fee is pretty cheap.

I don't buy that it's some violation of rights, or silly arguments that people will get blamed for crimes are committed with a gun that was stolen from them etc.
 
We're on the same page, dmaul. I'd like to hear from gun rights advocates and conservatives on the issue. Is there any more to the argument than dmaul has illustrated?

Are there are other examples where licenses have severely impinged on freedoms? I don't see that with cars or hunting but I'd like to hear from the right on this one.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not an expert on it either. But I've never seen any good studies on the effects of concealed carry on crime. Just a bunch of very weak studies correlating crime rates in cities or states with more lenient concealed carry laws vs. those with more restrictive.

And even those seem to have mixed results--just like anything there's anti-gun folk touting higher numbers of accidental shootings, crimes of passion shootings etc. And the NRA types touting lower crime rates etc.

When it's all probably spurious. But that's the nature of the issue as it's hard to do a quasi-experimental study of the topic (best you can do is try to match cities on various characteristics and control for as many variables as possible). And I've not seen good studies trying to do that. But again it's not my area either, so maybe there is something recent out there.

And of course you can't do a randomized experiment since you can't randomize gun policy across cities, counties etc.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Shouldn't be too hard to do a pre-and-post crime rates in MSAs with the passage of a CCW law as the centerpoint. Not that I have time to delve into another subtantive literature area.

I'd like to think someone's doing this research and not letting a lobbyist like Larry "More Guns, Less Crime" Pratt dominate the conversation.
 
I don't think anything will sway a *lobby*, and I'm not hopeful about any amount of empirical scientific evidence to defeat not only (1) a romantic point (the love of a boy and his gun), but (2) one whose justifications and opinions are sculpted almost wholly out of self-supporting mantras ("cold dead hand," "when guns are outlawed...,") and (3) absolutist appeals to the second amendment with no willingness to think about how genuinely complex an issue it is.

It's more about being informed of the individual and social costs and benefits of widespread gun ownership. It's neither absolutely beneficial nor is it only harmful. But as long as we have people who seem to think that allowing CCW on college campuses would have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter (a mythological notion that's teeming with severe logistical issues, not the least of which is the "John McClane is not a real police officer" fallacy), then we're not on useful footing in terms of actually having a debate as much as we are preparing to beat slogans back and forth in an ideological tennis match.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Are there are other examples where licenses have severely impinged on freedoms? I don't see that with cars or hunting but I'd like to hear from the right on this one.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, requiring a license or other government issued, photo ID for voting will restrict one's right to vote...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...(3) absolutist appeals to the second amendment with no willingness to think about how genuinely complex an issue it is.[/QUOTE]

Gun ownership is a "right". Sorry.

When owning a gun becomes a "privilege" after repealing the 2nd, we can start playing games like making a gun in an unlocked closet a crime.
 
It's more complex than "gun ownership is a right."

Unless you think the right to bear arms can and should include nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons, rocket launchers, and grenades.

For hunting, of course. Nothing takes down a ten-point buck like a vial of sarin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Unless you think the right to bear arms can and should include nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons, rocket launchers, and grenades.[/QUOTE]

Until you repeal the 2nd, it does sadly.

I'll save your response some trouble: :wall:

People who push out bills such as HR 45 want almost any type of weapon out of the hands of the public. They just aren't willing to take the flack for proposing a bill to repeal the 2nd.
 
Haha. But that answer avoids the nuanced arguments found in literalist vs normative reinforcement arguments w/ regard to the constitution.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. Shouldn't be too hard to do a pre-and-post crime rates in MSAs with the passage of a CCW law as the centerpoint. Not that I have time to delve into another subtantive literature area.

I'd like to think someone's doing this research and not letting a lobbyist like Larry "More Guns, Less Crime" Pratt dominate the conversation.[/QUOTE]

There probably are some pre-post studies out there, think I've even seen some.

I've been trained as an experimental criminologist though, so I don't put a lot of stock into pre-post studies.

I think a problem with this one is states and cities don't make major changes in gun laws very often, which limits chances for even a strong pre-post study. One opportunity would be DC with the overturning of their gun ban last year or the year before.

[quote name='depascal22']Do you think research will really sway the gun lobby though?[/QUOTE]

Not at all. Lobbyists aren't intersted in facts unless they support their argument of course. They exist only to make the law bend to their views.

I'd just like to see some studies for my own knowledge to have a more informed opinion of the impact of concealed weapon laws on crime. But haven't had the time/interest to do a thorough search, and haven't been impressed by the few studies I've seen over the years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Haha. But that answer avoids the nuanced arguments found in literalist vs normative reinforcement arguments w/ regard to the constitution.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely and on purpose.

When your foundation is crap, you can't build a skyscraper.

Putting people in jail because they left their guns in a closet instead of a safe or not approving their application because there is only one Attorney General isn't going to stop a dedicated criminal and it won't make society safer.

Gun control advocates need to push making gun ownership a privilege instead of a right. To do that, the 2nd has to be repealed or amended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top