HR 45, Gun control licensing and registration...

Dungheap said:
Well, maybe you should read the CRS summary or the bill before you post things like this. You are misleading your readers. And I'm not assuming anything, just pointing out that the law doesn't say what you say it says.

For those that would like to know what the law actually does, here:
Click to expand...
I linked to the law. They can read it for themselves.

Here's one of the sections that doesn't seem to be included in your synopsis:

TITLE III--ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS

Sec. 301. Universal background check requirement.

Sec. 302. Failure to maintain or permit inspection of records.

Sec. 303. Failure to report loss or theft of firearm.

Sec. 304. Failure to provide notice of change of address.

Sec. 305. Child access prevention.
Click to expand...

And there are others. You attempt to misdirect without reading what it actually states just in the titles.

*I'd like to note the "change of address" portion, because it was one of the things I included in my short sentence form of some of the titles of provisions.

I attempt to entice people to read the actual law as it was written so they can form an opinion with my first post, you assumed I was "misleading" people.
 
Damocles said:
I linked to the law. They can read it for themselves.

Here's one of the sections that doesn't seem to be included in your synopsis:



And there are others. You attempt to misdirect without reading what it actually states just in the titles.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's right here:

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...


And I'm not trying to argue with you on this. The Congressional Research Service provides summaries of all legislation. If you want an accurate synopsis of proposed legislation go there. That's what I provided.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, it's right here:




And I'm not trying to argue with you on this. The Congressional Research Service provides summaries of all legislation. If you want an accurate synopsis of proposed legislation go there. That's what I provided.
Click to expand...
Works for me. Just don't get overly excited over my attempt to entice people to read the law and we'll get along swimmingly. We both provided links, you attempt to diminish the importance of some of the provisions saying it "doesn't say what I say it does", yet we find out that indeed it does say it. Since I simply got that sentence from actual titles of provisions in the bill it would be difficult for it not to say it.
 
Damocles said:
Link

Gun owners would have to register at a central (D.C.) database, release access to medical and mental records, keep a valid address, register all transfers...

Looks almost identical to one Rahm Emanuel brought forward that was defeated last year.
Click to expand...

Since somebody suggested that the bill doesn't actually say what I said it says here I thought I'd copy and paste some of what it says...

Section 102.8 (deals with requirements to apply for the federally issued license):

(8)an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

Section 304 (deals with address changes, remember how I said it forced you to keep a valid address?):

`(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.'

The license is issued by and a databse kept of the licensee by the Attorney General's office (DC, remember how I said that?)
Click to expand...
You posted how they must register all transfers and can only transfer a gun to somebody with a license...


It seems that everything that I said it says, it really does say!
 
Damocles said:
Since somebody suggested that the bill doesn't actually say what I said it says here I thought I'd copy and paste some of what it says...


You posted how they must register all transfers and can only transfer a gun to somebody with a license...


It seems that everything that I said it says, it really does say!
Click to expand...


It says some of the things you say it says, but not all. Most specifically, it does not require gun owners to register at a central (D.C.) database. And it doesn't require gun owners to release medical records.
 
Dungheap said:
It says some of the things you say it says, but not all. Most specifically, it does not require gun owners to register at a central (D.C.) database. And it doesn't require gun owners to release medical records.
Click to expand...
So you don't call the central authority who issues and keeps the licenses a registry?

Methinks you are getting caught up in semantics. And I actually messed up on the medical portion I wanted to say "mental health records" so I'll give you that one. I didn't realize I had left the "medical records" in there until I was quoting later.

However, you are pretending it doesn't say what I say it does, when we can point to the provisions that do. You are being flat out intellectually dishonest. And weakly so. You know that if it "says what I say it does" then it is likely to fail because people will be loudly against it. Unfortunately it really does.

I read the law, you attempt to read a synopsis and use only that to dismiss what I said (when I actually used the TITLES of the provisions to get the one-sentence synopsis I provided). You would have been one of those idiots who voted for war because you just couldn't be bothered with a bit of research and reading.
 
Solitary said:
If you want a Kentucky Long rifle, go with a bigger caliber muzzle loader.

If you want a varmint rifle that doubles as a deer rifle, go with a .243, 257 Roberts, or a 25-06. (or get a T/C Encore)



If you want to pretend that there are not plenty of politicians who would indeed prefer an unarmed population, dig a small hole in your yard and insert your head.
Click to expand...

That won't work here in Ohio.....they give the deer a sporting chance here. No high powered rifles allowed. You have primitive weapon season (muzzle loaders and Bows) and shot gun season.

Besides, I love the retro aspect of muzzle loaders.
 
Mottleydude said:
That won't work here in Ohio.....they give the deer a sporting chance here. No high powered rifles allowed. You have primitive weapon season (muzzle loaders and Bows) and shot gun season.

Besides, I love the retro aspect of muzzle loaders.
Click to expand...
That's because it's all flat in Ohio. High powered rifle shots can travel for miles and kill people you don't know about and never met.

We've got these things here called "actual hills" that stop that from happening.
 
Damocles said:
So you don't call the central authority who issues and keeps the licenses a registry?

Methinks you are getting caught up in semantics. And I actually messed up on the medical portion I wanted to say "mental health records" so I'll give you that one. I didn't realize I had left the "medical records" in there until I was quoting later.

However, you are pretending it doesn't say what I say it does, when we can point to the provisions that do. You are being flat out intellectually dishonest. And weakly so. You know that if it "says what I say it does" then it is likely to fail because people will be loudly against it. Unfortunately it really does.

I read the law, you attempt to read a synopsis and use only that to dismiss what I said (when I actually used the TITLES of the provisions to get the one-sentence synopsis I provided). You would have been one of those idiots who voted for war because you just couldn't be bothered with a bit of research and reading.
Click to expand...


I don't particularly care for the bill. However, I'd just like point out that it would not override state licensing regimes where they exist.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't particularly care for the bill. However, I'd just like point out that it would not override state licensing regimes where they exist.
Click to expand...
Only if the State licensing regimes met their certification standards (Section 602) and they still have to give all the information to the central authority.
 
One thing is true, I doubt I would have read as much of the bill as I have without this place and Dung here...

:D

I love this type of thing.

And I agree with you, I don't particularly "care" for this law. In fact I outright oppose it.
 
Damocles said:
One thing is true, I doubt I would have read as much of the bill as I have without this place and Dung here...

:D

I love this type of thing.

And I agree with you, I don't particularly "care" for this law. In fact I outright oppose it.
Click to expand...


Anything I can do to help out. I support tracking firearm sales but that's about it.
 
Dungheap said:
Anything I can do to help out. I support tracking firearm sales but that's about it.
Click to expand...

why? what purpose or criminal safety measure do you think it will provide except provide a list of every weapon owned by citizens available for confiscation? and do you realize that commercial and dealer firearms sales are already tracked?
 
Mottleydude said:
That won't work here in Ohio.....they give the deer a sporting chance here. No high powered rifles allowed. You have primitive weapon season (muzzle loaders and Bows) and shot gun season.

Besides, I love the retro aspect of muzzle loaders.
Click to expand...

I love muzzleloading season. I have killed over 30 deer with a muzzleloader. I haven't hunted a rifle season here in about 5 years. I would hate to be restricted to a shot gun in rifle season though. Like Damo, we have hills here to stop the travel of the bullet........but then in the western part of the state we have the plains too. I do a lot of varmit hunting with a 223. I wouldn't like that to be taken away.
 
leaningright said:
I agree with all of this, especially the last sentence. A 243 is an excellent all around choice for varmits and whitetails.

Reading the NRA as the National Republican Association is a mis-read though. I think I pointed out that in my last "voters guide" given to me by the NRA the majority (around 80% I think) of the recommended candidates were democrats.
Click to expand...

Not in Ohio it's not. First, aint to much of a challenge shooting white tailed deer in Ohio. It's slightly more difficult than shooting dairy cows. Primitive weapons ups the skill level required. So up here hunting deer with high powered rifles is considered whimpy, at worst (not to mention illegal) and is unsportsmanlike at best. I'd be embarrassed to hunt something like White Tails with either of those weapons. Not good choices at all.

Second, there two many idiots with lots of fire power and damned precious hunting skills who think that gun makes them Simon Kenton. Last thing we need to do here is turn them lose during deer season with high powered rifles when you can practically shoot them with slingshots.

Do you have a link to that? I've known plenty of gun nuts who vote Republican cause the NRA told em democrats was a gonna take thar guns away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top