Ammo For Sale

« « CCW Holder Stops Violence | Home | Glockity » »

Gun Bills in the New Congress

H.R. 17 – Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

H.R. 45 – Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

H.R. 197 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

H.R. 257 – Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007
To prevent children’s access to firearms.

H.R. 442 – Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act of 2009

To provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register certain firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and for other purposes.

H.R. 495 – Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009
To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.

From OpenCongress.

12 Responses to “Gun Bills in the New Congress”

  1. TNProgrammer Says:

    My summary:

    HR 17: Why?…We already have this right in the 2nd amendment; no need to pass a law to affirm that we can own a shotgun/handgun/rifle.

    HR 45: Illegal Fail. Register my handgun or detachable mag semi-auto? Methinks not.

    HR 247: Likely Fail, can’t tell until the text is posted, but anything “for the children” is typically awful.

    HR 197: Win. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if California revokes its permit issuance status if this passes.

    HR 442: Win, if I understand correctly this means that all those older NFA guns possessed by vets get to be legal. Let em keep their guns.

    HR 495: Pointless money sink.

  2. TNProgrammer Says:

    Addendum to HR 17 opinion:
    Scratch the “Why” portion.
    I expect to see a lot of lawsuits against a few of the more blue states if this passes due to restrictions on firearm storage in event of a felonious crime ensuing in one’s home. Perhaps this will be impetus to relaxing those restrictions, since logic has failed to work in the past, perhaps hitting them in the wallet will work a bit better.

  3. karrde Says:

    Is there any way we can get some sort of fence option grafted into HR 495?

  4. Wolfwood Says:

    karrde

    So fence or defense? Make up your mind!

  5. Tom Says:

    HR495= job creation, and by jobs I mean some ignorant soccer mom anti-gunner filled leftist think tank who will sit around dreaming up ways around Heller, how to close down “sources of firearms” INTO mexico.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but mexico isn’t a state…Oooooh, maybe it’s number 57.

    If mexico wants to find out where “illegal” guns are coming from they can send the confiscated guns to ATFU for tracing, we don’t need to be paying more money for that cesspool.

  6. TNProgrammer Says:

    Karrde
    I somehow don’t think that the 30 million allotted will allow for their “teams” AND a fence.

  7. anonymous Says:

    “So fence or defense? Make up your mind!”

    If we used the British spelling of ‘defence,” we could have both!

  8. ajacksonian Says:

    It’s belt AND suspenders.

    Fence AND defense.

    Any word on the ammo tax bill?

  9. M. Simon Says:

    Drug War deaths will be used to justify gun bans.

    Gun owners are generally clueless about the threat the Drug War poses to their rights.

    Watch – 2,000 guns a day go South to Mexico while drugs come North will be the PR gimmick.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    Yeah, we gun nuts don’t keep up with things like that.

  11. Robin Goodfellow Says:

    HR 257 looks pretty bad. As far as I can tell it would raise the legal age for possession of a handgun to 21 and otherwise redefine “child” to mean either “anyone under 18” or “anyone under 21”, though I only took a quick look at the bill and the relevant code.

  12. Steve Sky Says:

    Note: “and other purposes”, on three of the bills. This is a very big loophole, that once the bill is law, can be used to redefine the law to mean whatever those in power, want it to mean. Whenever I see “and other purposes” attached to gov’t legislation or regulation, that is a big red warning flag saying, “watch out”.