RRC Archives

this bill will require the following things
1. Require licensing for anybody that owns a gun.

2. Would require photographs and a thumbprint

3. Would require passage of a test that covers:

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;
Section 102 (a) (1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant; (what is wrong with a DL?)

Section 102 (a) (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; (that sounds rather intrusive)

Section 103 (c) looks to be creating a federal firearms card, with your picture and information. This from the Party that goes ballistic over a national ID card.

Section 104 makes it seem as if all renewals go through the AG of the USA. Does this mean that I have to go to a Federal office to reapply

The new ag holder is on the record of supporting the dc and chicago complete and total gun ownership ban for all civilians.
More information at gunownersofamerica.com

Sounds fair to me.

You need a license to drive, why not to own a gun? Besides, with all the warrantless wiretapping, etc. they already know who owns the guns.

the majority of people this will affect are not the ones that need to be licensed...i would guess.

i enjoy people flippimg out about gun regs. its THOSE people that make me wish it was mandated even harder.


and i own guns!

I don't own a gun, but I think you should have the right to protect yourself if you want. If you have ever had a misdemeaner, ptsd, been on ssri for depression=no gun for you. The federal gvt is already too big in my opinion, just think how much this would cost you and me the taxpayer.

"the majority of people this will affect are not the ones that need to be licensed...i would guess." Of course, criminals can always get guns if they want them.
"Besides, with all the warrantless wiretapping, etc. they already know who owns the guns." With 150 million gun owners here in america, each owning an average of 2 guns, they don't know where all of them are. Speaking of the warrantless wiretapping, remember when Obama said he would stop it?

Wes wrote:You need a license to drive, why not to own a gun? Besides, with all the warrantless wiretapping, etc. they already know who owns the guns.

Gee Wes, that's rather astounding. The right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Driving a car is a privilege granted by the state. Not at all comparable. And for whatever reason, the Obama Whitehouse has come down on the side of warrantless wiretaps. Like GW, Obama is after terrorists, not your guns. At least that's what he says.

Oh, that whole Constitution thing again. Isn't that and the bill of rights kinda like the bible in that you (or the gov't, or the far left/right/etc) can just pick the parts you want to support and believe in?

Nope, I support the constitution and the bill of rights wholeheartedly. Question is, do you think Obama's trying to take your rights away already?

Or do you think the overblown reaction to the wiretapping of calls to or from suspected terrorists overseas, may have been a bit of political theater, rather than any real concern about our rights being trampled?

Hard to say about the witetaps - what does worry me a bit is the connections to NSA from ATT, etc. They suck in huge amounts of data, then filter it. So, for instance, this thread could end up on a disk somewhere. Esp. if I were to toss a couple keywords in.

But, kinda like what I said before - people tend to pick and choose. And I know it is a generalization, but you never hear of the NRA/far right getting up in arms about the 10 commandments being posted in gov't buildings, or prayer in school, yet those are also not in sync with the Constitution. The ACLU is really not spoken of highly in many of the pro gun people's groups, yet they also fight to protect the same documents.

Mostly, it is just amusing to me to watch people pick and chose their battles without much real thought. People are dumb. Or at least they are unable/unwilling to really try to understand what the believe in and why.