saw this over on the Tenn. forums..

Quote:

Subject: Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. Once again, a question of our Constitutional Rights.... It would appear, that this is the beginning, of the erosion of our freedoms! Information on the bill under consideration to restrict ownership & registration of firearms. Have you got this in your scope? Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill, "HR 45" being introduced into the House. This is the "Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009". We just learned yesterday about this, on the Peter Boyles radio program. Even gun shop owners didn't know about this, because it's carefully flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any gov't website & type in "HR 45", or just Google "HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009". You'll get all the information. Basically, this would make it illegal to own a firearm - including any rifle with a clip, or ANY pistol regardless of type, unless: - It is registered. - You are fingerprinted (and 'cleared' to own one). - You supply a current Driver's License. - You supply your Social Security Number. - You submit to a physical & mental evaluation, at any time of their choosing. - Each update - change - or ownership - through private, or public sale, must be reported, & costs $25. Failure to do so, & you automatically lose the right to own a firearm!! & you're subject to up to a year in jail!!!!! - There's also a children's clause, on page 16 section 305, stating that as a child-access provision, any gun in your home, or under your supervision, must be locked, & inaccessible to any child under 18. They (gov't) would have the right to come & inspect your premises, to see that you are storing your gun safely, & away from accessibility by children, & if not, the fine is actually punishable by up to 5 yrs. in prison. If you think this is a joke - go to the websites & take your pick of many options to read this. It is very long & very "wordy", but, more & more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family MUST BE TOLD - - - - pass this to them, too. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one, to use against me. HR 45 only makes me (us) less safe. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Good find and thank you for pointing it out.

it'being piggy backed in with the new budget....supposedly to help with the narco trafficante violence in mexico....
while some of their guns are from US buyers..very expensive for them...most of the military weapons being used by the narcos are coming from local and federal police units as well as being sold by military officers who have had access to weapons confiscated from rebel forces in chiapas and such......alot of stuff being "lost" or "stolen"....

i knew it was coming...
i called it LAST summer

.....dang it.....

doesn't it violate the searches and seizures part of the constitution?

andrew is right
they really stopped giving a s*** about the constitution awhile back.

some change we got

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Is there any part of the Constitution left that hasn't been pissed on yet?

i dunno.
what im pissed about is not only this.
but because THIS is happening is the fact that almost this whole country wanted him because hes half black and they just wanted to make history (yes im only 18 but,) d*mn teenagers.

they dont know jack.

anyway. fallout and aces

they really have already pissed on every inch of the consitution.
this sucks SO badly.

is their ANY good news from any of this?! please?! i want to not have to say ah s*** for once

Hello Everyone,

<Soapbox>

Alexiares wrote:

doesn't it violate the searches and seizures part of the constitution?

The 4th Amendment, the one that encompasses Search in Seizure, does not address the
Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms as was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court recently.
They are two distinct rights. Banning something is not a "search" or a "seizure" within the meaning
of the 4th Amendment. What you are alluding to is a denial of a constitutional right of possession,
which is addressed by the Second Amendment.

Aces Wild wrote:
"only if they don't have a warrant, but since when do they care about the constitution"

Your right to be secure in your person or home is fundamental right to be free from "UNREASONABLE"
searches and seizures. Who defines what is "unreasonable"? Well, the Courts do and have done so since
the case of Marbury vs. Madison(1803) when the Court claimed that exclusive right for
itself under our Constitutional scheme to say what the law is in a matter.

Not every search without a warrant is illegal just as not every seizure pursuant to a warrantless search
is illegal. There exists caselaw of the last 120 years defining what is unreasonable and unconstitutional
and what is allowable under the 4th Amendment both with and without a warrant.

The Second Amendment's effect of rightful gun ownership was the subject of endless argument and debate
until the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 finally said YES...you do have a right to keep and bear arms.

It might not hurt you guys to actually read the document that guarantees your rights. It is only the informed
citizen that is the true sentinel of a free republic.

</soapbox>

Respectfully,
Mike W., Esq.

_________________
Deployed to Alabamastan in the Heart of Deep South Haji land.

That's a bunch of bull. I hope it doesn't get passed. I sill be sure to pass it on. Thanks for this find.

more fun stuff....from the TC airsoft forums

Quote:

Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading -- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”? Well, guess what? Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate. A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners. It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work. First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean? 1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition ... without a license....” Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit -- is clearly “illicit manufacturing.” Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.” 2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition. “[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty -- and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined. So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably. A toy gun? Possibly. A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else. If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty: * Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases. * Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership. * Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances. We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers. Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.” Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner? * Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost. * Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database. ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

discuss among yourselves.....