Green Room

Bobby Rush, H.R. 45, Attacking the 2nd Amendment

posted at 7:14 am on May 14, 2009 by

The Far Left Congress, seeing an avowed Constitution hater taking over the Oval Office, has introduced legislation to completely hamper law abiding citizens’ ability to own guns. Enter H.R. 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

See the full text here:

It’s really not surprising that Bobby Rush introduced this thing, given his radical stance on guns.

Our intrepid march toward socialism has been marked by government takeovers of banks, fear mongering by our chief executive in an effort to weaken the resolve of a people already much too reliant on the government, and now members of the House seek to strip away our ability to defend ourselves.


(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.

That situation, while tragic, could not be prevented by stricter gun laws. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals will still get their weapons if they want, and what gun control does is prevent those of us who can legally possess a weapon from defending ourselves.

(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;

Some other highlights of this bill include this gem, which allows the government to access your mental health records to determine if you are an acceptable choice for owning a weapon. But what is the criteria? First off, it’s none of their business, but second, who decides what kind of mental problems? How severe counts as unacceptable to them? What about when they add an amendment about physical issues? If you have a heart problem, would the government think that it’s bad for you to own a weapon? What if you are fine head-wise, but you’re on Obama’s political dissident list? This gives them far too much power and far too much subjectivity.

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted

So, the bill calls for a thumbprint to be added to the ID card. Great idea, Bobby Rush. So now, the government can run the prints from any crime scene through the database and possibly catch you for a crime you did not commit. Let’s say you go to the Sack-o-Suds and buy 22 specific items off the shelf. You pay, you leave, and another man walks in and kill the clerk. The Fed runs the prints on the counter, finds yours and sees that you’re a gun owner, and hunts you down and arrests you.

That’s not a far-fetched scenario, folks. It’s like getting your face in a mug shot lineup; every person who pages through that book has a shot at accidentally fingering you, and the fingerprint is even worse, because literally any crime committed at any place you’ve ever been has a chance of catching you in the net.

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–

This section goes on to detail this massive testing procedure involving gun law, firearms storage and a whole host of other insanity. The government can’t do this. We have a little thing called the 2nd Amendment, which reads something like this:

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.

Somehow, this sort of strikes me as “infringing.”

(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.

So much for States’ rights. Didn’t we fight a civil war about this sort of garbage not too long ago? It’s not within the rights of the Federal Government to enact overarching laws that strip away the rights provided to citizens through the Bill of Rights. That document wouldn’t be worth much if the government could strip it all away for no reason.

Giving medical records access to the government and allowing them to search your home means that this takes away your 4th Amendment rights whenever you try to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. It’s absurd, it’s unconstitutional and completely incomprehensible.

From the NRA:

U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently sponsored H.R. 45, also known as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act.” The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and registration scheme.

big brotherThe measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner’s address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a “qualifying firearm” — defined as “any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…” [emphasis added] without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a “qualifying firearm” to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require “qualifying firearm” owners to report all transfers to the attorney general’s database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence.

H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of H.R. 2666, which Rush introduced in 2007. H.R. 2666 contained much of the same language as H.R. 45, and was co-sponsored by several well-known anti-gun legislators–including Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors.

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
This bill is outragous and is an example of why the State of Montana has taken matters into their own hands. I can only hope that every State in our union will follow Montana’s lead and protect their citizens 2nd Amendment rights from the Federal Government’s continued attempts at breaking down this most important amendment. Remember, the 2nd Amendment exists in case the government forgets the other ones.
Sources: Conservative Rumblings and NRA

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Wow! You even got a picture in there. 🙂

Great Post Keemo. Too bad Pelosi had to screw up everyone’s work today.

Rovin on May 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM

There are some mental health issues that will disqualify you from gun possession. Authorization for medical records has been part of the FFL application and renewal since the Brady Bill.

Remember that the healthcare plan includes putting all of our medical records into a data base. It would be simple enough to have the NICS system cross check the medical database. The possibility of a doctor writing you a prescription one day, a flag going off at the ATF and the Feds showing up to confiscate your guns appears to be feasible.

Highwayman on May 14, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Rovin on May 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Amen brother! This Pelosi is some kind of creature from the dark side.

Highwayman on May 14, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Good points all! This is why we must watch closely as these attempts to destroy our 2nd amendment rights are being pushed through the back door. Thank God for the NRA, and sister organizations that act as good watch dogs for us while Liberals continue their march towards complete rewrite of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Keemo on May 15, 2009 at 7:19 AM

Here in the UK there was recently a case where a young woman became pregnant and was soon told by Social Services that she was not going to be allowed to keep her baby- because she had suffered from depression as a teenager. They basically told her that the moment the baby was born they would take it off her- for the child’s own good, of course.

I have no doubt that, if it isn’t a disqualifying “mental health issue” to begin with, then depression very soon will be.

Take note from the UK people- licensing is the first step towards stricter regulations and then eventual bans. Licensing by its very nature discourages some people, who otherwise would, from ever owning a gun. Pretty soon the percentage of the population which actively owns guns is reduced to such a level that the government can do pretty much what they want without having to worry about any protest.

As for the anti-gun arguments that gun control has anything to do with public safety or reducing crime go read this-

Gun control in the UK has been an abject failure at making the country safer from gun crime.

But then, that was never really the intention to begin with, was it?

Jay Mac on May 15, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Jay Mac on May 15, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Wow, I mean WOW!!! Telling a woman she can’t keep her baby!

Thanks for sharing that info with us Jay; much appreciated.

Is it any wonder why the world doesn’t trust government?

Keemo on May 15, 2009 at 9:30 AM

The UK is basically a police state in many regards. Mark Steyn covers some examples in his Hillsdale lecture-

Here’s a blog post I did some time ago about the way Social Services are acting–

One thing I didn’t make explicit in that post is that when it comes to kids, social services can have judges impose a gag order on the parents- denying them recourse to the media. If they do talk, and break the gag orders, they could be sent to prison.

Jay Mac on May 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM