U.S. Congress - H.R.45 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
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. view all titles (2)
All Bill Titles
- Short: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Official: 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. as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 31-60 of 1872 total comments.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Filtered Comment [ show ]
There is no such thing and the separation of curch and sta. The constitution says the government will make no law to promote or direct the creation of an official religion, or close to that, it has nothing to do with a separation of rather prevents the creation of an official religion.
Amen Brother. God Bless the USA (minus congress and the cronies). The state shall not infringe on my beliefs. Don’t Tread on Me!
Civil War is right around the corner.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
dude if that is treasonous talk we’d still be a fucking Brit colony. we are willing to fight for our rights and if the government takes them away what dos that leave? good thing way back when Americans weren’t all pussies like you.
The Second Amendment was set up for the sole purpose of giving The People the means to defend against a government that infringes on the Rights of The People.
It is not treasonous to hold such beliefs. Rather it is our right and duty.
Moderated Comment
TREASON? Bill Clinton forced American troops to serve under UN officers so he could send us into combat without congressional approval. That is treason fool. In the mean time he was trying to take our guns away. And the libs worry about W’s abuse of power???? I guess Monica was that good. I am ready to join the Revolt.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Moderated Comment
What part of this is treasonous? The part where our RIGHT to bear arms is constantly being obstructed, mutated, and disregarded. And yet the people who want to have such FREEDOMS are condemned and labeled as fanatics. to own a gun is not mandatory, neither is self defense, no one says you have to stop someone from killing you, but it IS your right to do so by any means necessary. And the government has no right to mediate any of OUR FREEDOMS! They DO NOT have the right. However it is our RESPONSIBILITY to teach and mediate our own. We have slipped back and let others control our lives instead of managing our own it is our fault we let the government do these things. Treason would be turning your back on Americans and letting others from outside and within to harm your fellow Americans.
I personally have a problem with anyone thinking I need a piece of paper, even one as great as the Constitution, to tell me I have the right to defend myself, my family or my property.
amen,this time a civil war wont be the south aginst the north ,it will be the real Americans aginst the politicans that want to keep control of us all ,guess what we will win and maybe have real leaders that give a damn about what we want and not their own intress,we will be a land agine for the people and of the people , i dont know about you all but i cant wait for that day ,
It seems as if the powers that be have forgotten that Americans usually think for themselves and threatening to take their guns is just not the thing to do. Americans will not lay down and be walked over.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
I believe the definition of respecting on the websters website says " in view of" which means that the government can not establish a mother church. Such as what the pilgrims and puritans were running away from when they cam here, a mother church of England.
This is completely irrelevant, unimportant, and out of place. Read the heading – HR45 gun control, for Crist’s sake.
This is also completely irrelevant, unimportant, and out of place. Read the heading – HR45 gun control, for Crist’s sake.
Wrong. Seems like you should read it again. Our founding fathers did not want ANY kind of religion tied to government. They had just fought England which was heavily controlled by the church(one of many reasons for revolution.). This is why America exists. Maybe you should READ the constitution for yourself before you interpret it. Here ya go…
First Ammendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION – There it is…
Want some more…
Article V – The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION – hmm, what does that mean to you?
Article 2 Section 1 – Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Notice there is no “so help me God” this has been added by some presidents since and is not required in any way.
We are here to talk gun control, not religion, but if you want an argument on religion, I’m game. I think we should pick a better venue for it, however.
No religious test means they do not have to claim any religious affiliation nor will any religious affiliation disqualify them, not that they must be without religion. That is fine – that is the intent of the Constitution. Do you think for a minute though that the founding fathers meant for those taking office to mean that they would be irreligious, irreverent, not bound by any moral code, believing that there is no purpose to life, and to eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you shall die? WE NEED MORAL MEN AND WOMEN TO GUIDE AND GOVERN. If they can do it without religion in their lives, that is fine with me, but the MOST moral, people I have ever met, are affiliated with some kind of religion and usually have deep convictions.
Religious and Moral are completely seperate, and most of the time mutually exclusive. By your logic, the most `religous’ men should be in government. That would put catholic priests up pretty high right?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/25/DDGDQLUMCM1.DTL
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/priest-who-molested-boys-called-to-testify-in-federal-investigation-of-la-archdiocese.html
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=535158
http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/05/nun-said-she-saw-priest-molest-boy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
I am moral and have very deep convictions, but am not affiliated with any type of religion, and generally (strongly) oppose religion. I also believe that there is likely some sort of higher being, but find no purpose in religion none the less.
“That would put catholic priests up pretty high right?”
The Catholic Church has forbidden its clergy from holding any political office, so your concern here is baseless
Where does that say anything about an “official” religion?
Nobody is asking for an official religion. I don’t want one. I am just tired of the “no religion” being the official religion of the government. It is kind of like gays trying to redefine marriage and forcing the general public to accept their way of life. That of course is a whole new thing – don’t get me going on that.
Yeah, I hated it when those damn blacks wanted to marry our girls…sickening!
HODMOKRIN:This is for the atheists and the ignorant who think they know what they’re talking about.here’s your proof that America is a Christian nation, contrary to what your president likes to flow like sewage out of his mouth…http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
there you go. Isn’t Snopes who you go to to get the facts? well here’s another… http://morallaw.org/blog/?p=31 Oh, and your other post, which obviously wasn’t verbatim as per the Constitution because you misspelled “Amendment”,(so wasn’t very effective) Eat on this:“Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Now tell me why my kids can’t pray in school or set out a nativity scene? Oh, because people like you say it’s not accepted; well, guess what, those who came before you say you’re wrong.
There is no law to prevent the establishment of a religion. The problem stems from people trying to change a current one instead of establishing their own. This “coersion” is probably what is causing the problem. If enough people share their belief that an activity such as homosexuality is fine, they should establish their own place instead of forcing their belief on anothers.
“or the free exercise thereof;” why then are all the laws concerning religion that have been passed in this past century were restrictions on the right to the free exercise thereof? And, in most cases and the targeted religion was most often Christianity.