The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
H.R. 45 (Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) threatens to do just that.
The intent of the bill is “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.”
Without getting into too much legalese, this bill would make the process of purchasing and licensing a firearm — any handgun or rifle that can accept a clip — much more difficult.
Under H.R. 45, to own a gun, you would have to submit a comprehensive application, including (1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant, (2) a thumbprint, (3) a statement that you are not prohibited from obtaining a firearm, (4) certification that you will safely store the firearm and (5) authorization to release any personal mental health records to the Attorney General.
In addition to this application, those applying for gun ownership would be required to take a written exam, testing their knowledge and ability regarding safe storage and handling of firearms, use of firearms in the home, and the legal responsibilities of firearm owners on the local, state and federal levels.
H.R. 45 would also create a national gun registry database overseen by the federal government, allowing the Attorney General to leverage harsher penalties for violating stricter standards.
The main problems of this bill are two-fold. First, it focuses on the instruments of crime rather than on the criminals who use the instruments. Second, it would hinder lawful ownership of guns, which history shows leads to an increase of crime.
First, H.R. 45 doesn’t address the real problem — the illegal obtainment of firearms by dishonorable individuals.
There are more than 20,000 gun laws in existence; most of them do nothing to stop or inhibit criminals. The rate of crimes committed by lawful owners of firearms is a very small percentage of the overall rate of crimes committed with firearms. Lawful owners are not the ones who need more restrictions.
The hunters, sports enthusiasts and other lawful gun owners will be affected, while the criminals, gangsters and drug dealers are still going to carry guns illegally.
Studies by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) have found that gun control laws are ineffective in reducing violent crime.
Think of the bill’s namesake, Blair Holt, a brave 16-year-old who was murdered in Chicago in 2007 while protecting a girl on a public bus from a shooter. The 16-year-old killer, Michael Pace, apparently got the gun from yet another minor, 15-year-old Kevin Jones.
Neither perpetrator had any legal right to own or carry a handgun, and nowhere in the United States would it have been legal to sell or loan a gun to either of them. In addition, Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. But the incident still occurred.
Ironically, H.R. 45 ignores these facts and calls for laws to restrict and hinder lawful gun owners, laws which wouldn’t have saved Blair Holt.
The second major problem with this bill is that it hinders lawful, reasonable ownership of guns.
H.R. 45’s requirements for gun ownership are excessive and would only serve to slow down or stop the process of law-abiding citizens owning firearms.
History and statistics have shown that wherever and whenever lawful gun ownership thrives, crime rates drop. On the other hand, when legal, reasonable gun ownership is restricted, crime increases.
Look at Kennesaw, Ga. The city passed an ordinance requiring every home (barring convicted felons, the disabled and those who conscientiously objected) to maintain a firearm and ammunition. Following its passage in 1982, the crime rate dropped by 89 percent and has remained among the lowest in the state ever since.
Conversely, following a horrendous killing spree by 28-year-old Martin Bryant on April 28, 1996, Australia overhauled its gun laws — spending more than $500 million and destroying 640,381 personal firearms. The following year, homicides, break-ins and assaults rose. Armed robberies went up 44 percent.
The only threats to public safety are from a criminal element that this bill does not address. The guns are not the problem, and most lawful gun purchasers are not criminals.
H.R. 45 is not the answer to gun violence. It is a sweeping culmination of all efforts to restrict private gun ownership and limit the guarantees of the Second Amendment.
It is a fundamentally flawed piece of illogical legislation that is attempting to fix a problem with methods that are ineffective and even counterproductive.
Feeds 
I think if you talk to any of your POLI SCI teacher or classmate, you'll find HR45 is dead before it went anywhere. It's similar to when Orrin Hatch proposes a bill to ban flag burning. He doesn't propose it because he thinks it's actually going to pass or has a chance to even get out of committee, he proposes it because his staunch republican base eats it up.
HR45 was proposed by a congressman from Illinois who wanted to fire up his base and get himself some publicity.
HR45 is going nowhere.
"Now 'all Guns' must be listed on your next 2010 tax return!" on
September 17th, 2009 7:49 AM http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/09/17/now-all-guns-m...
Is bogus and uses fear tactics.
You should check there work before spreading more lies!
The first part is usually the story or rumor and the last part either backs it up or dismisses it. In this case, neither has any hope of passing.
#-1 A pending Senate bill would require that all handgun owners list their guns on their federal income tax returns. False!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp
#-2 A bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearm licenses. True! However no one supports it!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
"Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched, Sarkozy said in an interview last week with the newspaper Le Monde."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/world/europe/31iht-france.html?_r=1
The people of France need to be armed, as the police are clearly not up to the task of defending them from such criminals.
Just today in the NYT!!!
"MANIAC AT THE ELYSEE.; Fights a Revolver Duel with Paris Police Until Overpowered."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C0CE2DD1730E733A25753C1A...
"Seemingly protected by some of the stiffest gun restrictions in the world, Europeans have discovered recently they are not immune from mass killings in which guns are employed. No longer are such incidents confined to supposedly gun-toting America.
Recent mass killings -- often with politicians as the targets -- have left at least 46 dead in Germany, France, Switzerland and Hungary. In addition, assassinations in the Netherlands and Italy left two politicians dead."
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=6727
What erroneous logic. We actually think having MORE guns is going to make us safer? Look at France--strict anti-gun policy, zero gun violence. What make believe world are we living in?
Can't we just accept the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written before there was a police force, let alone street lamps, & was only meant to arm the militia in the first place? Can't gun nuts read: "well regulated militia"?
And by the way, "guns don't kill people"? They certainly don't help.
But I suppose we could say nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people as well. Except...oh...we're aiming for nuclear disarmament. That's right.
Respect America's rights. Just because it is old does not mean it needs to be thrown out the window. You may not like guns but when the government decides it wants to step on your rights to do something I am guessing you are going to have a problem with it.
How about your freedom of speech to be able to say that you don't believe in gun rights? What if that was taken away? That is on the old out dated constitution.
And you point out that France has no problems with guns. That is just one country. Look at England they are going to have to outlaw knives, The way it looks now. Where do you draw the line then? sporks?
Guns don't make people safe as a whole. They make the people that choose to carry them able to defend themselves if the need arises. That is all. Nobody is claiming it is going to do anything other than basic self defense. Which some people are not able to do themselves i.e. the elderly or females faced with overwhelming force. Check the states that have passed concealed carry laws. Violence in those states have always been reduced.
France with strict gun control has almost twice the murder rate according to NationMaster.com at 1.7 then liberal gun control Switzerland .9 per 100000. Because there is gun control people don't stop killing. France according to World Health Organization has a higher suicide rate 26.1 for males,9.4 for females then the US 17.6 males,4.1 females. Doese that mean strict gun control increases the suicide rate? Why does strict gun control state California have twice the murder rate of liberal gun control state Oregon, according to the FBI? Maybe access to guns alone is not the cause of the high murder rates among a catagory of people.
You gun haters should read The Federalist Papers #29 by Alexander Hamilton, titled " Concerning the Militia" where you will understand the definition of Article one section #8 of the US Consitution and the definition of the words " well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. Well-regulated has nothing to do with joining the National Guard or the US military it has only to do with attaining good shooting skills that can be achieved by practicing at a local shooting range. Hamilton wrote" To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and the classes of citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going thru military exercises and evolutions as often as might be neccessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA..." By the Founding Fathers standard, even though I haven't joined the National Guard or US military, having the ability to shoot as well or better then those who are in the military I am a well-regulated militia.
Your source for "zero gun violence" in France, please? But that's really beside the point. As a Mormon - for the sake of argument I'll assume you are LDS and have read the Book of Mormon - you might take a broader historical view. Weapons and the use thereof are merely incident to a society's decline. In the case of the United States, I submit that the increase in gun violence (as a representative of violent crime as a whole) can be ascribed directly to the abandonment of true discipleship of Christ. I'm not saying that Mormons should support or oppose gun laws - that's a matter of individual opinion. I'm just saying that taking guns away from people is not going to solve the problem of malignant and abandoned hearts that will surely only increase as the years roll on. Your suggestion that murderous violence will decrease if access to guns is limited just is as logically erroneous as you say the Viewpoint author's argument is.