HR 45, commonly referred to as Blair Holt’s Firearm and Record of Sale Act, has many members of society shooting holes in its intent. The act was initiated by Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois soon after he attended the funeral of 16 year old Blair Holt, who was killed by handgun fire in an attempt to shield a girl from gang violence on a school bus. Essentially, the act does the following:
* Prohibits possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license.
* Requires all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers.
* Directs the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system.
* Requires the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms.
Proponents of the the act maintain it is only meant to record who is purchasing and registering and transferring guns, not to surreptitiously infringe upon one’s Constitutional right to bear arms. Opponents, meanwhile, feel that the law is aimed punishing the weapon, not the weapon’s user or intent (e.g. criminals). Two common misconceptions circulating in mass e-mail blasts contend that: 1) an applicant must submit to a physical and mental evaluation at any time of their choosing; and, 2) households would be subject to searches for firearms to comply with the law. In reality, no evaluation is required and only vendors would be subject to searches.
As of now, the bill has no co-sponsors and, according to many sources, seems likely to die in subcommittee. Enacting it would run the risk of alienating roughly 80 million licensed gunowners, who also happen to be members of an influential group known as registered voters.
HR 45 goes against the very precepts of the 2nd Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The “people” includes all citizens pursuant to District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008).
Bottom line: It sets a dangerous precedent to widen the scope of civic authority to protect civilians against themselves. Think Germany or Italy in the 1930s, and you will have an idea of how this scenario could play out.
April 16th, 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
|