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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 241-270 of 1872 total comments.

  • Patriots 01/24/2009 4:39pm

    Now they want to say who can even own a hunting rifle. “Cold dead hands” is what I say to that.

  • Alven 01/25/2009 6:19am

    Why is our government enacting gun legislation that penalizes innocent law abiding citizens, in effort to reduce high crime rates? How many criminals register their guns? (NIL)
    Why don’t we look at the real causes for people killing one another? The only chance
    of solving this problem is to concentrate on the ROOT CAUSE. It is obvious that most of these reasons are: Lack of parental control, Lack of education, Lack of role models, No job, Negative environment, Peer pressure, Lack of self esteem…
    Please WAKE UP and understand that no problem can be solved without first, eliminating the ROOT CAUSE.

  • Comm_reply
    rugrat 08/09/2009 2:57pm

    That’s just it LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. They know we want to follow the law and we do. They cant admit that the laws out there now don’t stop crooks.

  • Anonymous 01/25/2009 3:06pm
    Link Reply
    + -2


  • shybusch 01/25/2009 4:02pm

    We cannot allow the Democratic Congress to take away our rights any further. Please contact your senators ASAP on this and let them know you do not agree with this bill. In fact, write senators in states other than your own, make up an address in their state, and tell them to vote no on this bill. Viva la revolution!

  • Anonymous 01/25/2009 6:53pm

    This is War people. The right to keep and bear arms is our Constitutional right and the right of every free man born into this world.

    Anyone who would try to restrict or deny that right declares war, so should be dealt with as such.

    Maybe it is time for a revolution to take back what our forefathers fought and died for. Perhaps now is the time to fight the tyranny that is rising, and stamp it out like the hell hound that it is.

    Maybe now is the time to evict the illegal Federal Reserve fractional banking system from this country and try them for crimes against the people of the United States.

  • Comm_reply
    JonathanDS 02/15/2009 11:56am

    That wouldn’t be the best thing to do… Unless you like chain link fences, barbed wire, and stun batons. Research Guantanamo on the Hudson and Guantanamo on the Platte, you’ll see what I mean.

  • Lara1967 01/25/2009 8:12pm
    The person who is proposing this needs to read the Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    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.

    The last part does say Infringed meaning :


    infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass

    In the context of the Constitution, phrases like “shall not be infringed,” “shall make no law,” and “shall not be violated” sound pretty unbendable.

  • Comm_reply
    kaiserb 01/28/2009 1:06pm

    Bobby Rush is a kool-aid drinking, quasi-socialist, obamite… just like the rest of the Chicago political machine.

    I doubt that Rep. Rush can read, as he claims to be a product of the poor helpless inter-city, etc. etc. etc.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/02/2009 3:05pm

    I would like to know what percentage of gun crimes are drug related or by drug users and have those numbers published, I bet 95 % would be drug related.I guess since they cant control the drug problem they want to make it safer for them to rob us……

  • Comm_reply
    dcunited 02/03/2009 7:41am

    Take a look at the FBI report released yesterday For a short report, look at the USA Today story on the subject.

  • Anonymous 01/26/2009 10:19am

    Bills like H. R. 45 will continually be written and proposed, as long as we the people continue to vote them into office or back into office.

    Our founding fathers were very specific with the wording of The Constitution Of The United States and its Amendments. They were written clearly and precisely, so no interpetations is required.

    The people who right and propose these laws can only make me suspect as to their true motive. And those motives cannot be favorable the the majority of US Citizens.

    Maybe it is time to rename the democratic party to the Socialist Party of the USA. It seams more appropriate to the direction this country is fast moving.

    It took 185 years (revolution to 1960) to make this country truely number on in the worlds eyss. And it has taken only 49 years to bring us down.

  • Anonymous 01/26/2009 4:50pm

    I’ve seen first hand what happens when only criminals have weapons. I lived in the DC suburbs and saw drug dealers shooting it out in the 12th street tunnel during the 80’s in brode day light.

    this is just the first step in controlling and then outlawing gun ownership in this country. if the nuts in DC try to out law my guns then I will gladly join the ranks of other outlaws such as Thomas jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington whom i consider patriots in rising up to protect and defend the Consitution of the USA and the “Original” bill of rights!

    if they want my guns then i’ll gladly give it to them 1 bullet at a time. my childern will not grow up in a slave state.

    Molon Label – live free.

  • Comm_reply
    Drew_R 02/09/2009 9:14pm


  • Comm_reply
    aubelis 02/10/2009 7:05am

    What part of “shall not infringe” does Congress not understand? Sounds as if there is any chance a child, what under the age of 21? breaks into your home and uses your gun, you are liable?

  • Comm_reply
    kenj0418 02/11/2009 5:21pm
    ‘What part of “shall not infringe” does Congress not understand?’

    That would be the “shall not” part, Congress isn’t so good with understanding what they’re NOT supposed to do (with any part of the Constitution).

    But with regard to your other point — If you are able to exercise you’re second amendment rights, but then held responsible for allowing your weapon to fall into the hands of a child – how is that infringement?.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/14/2009 9:53am

    Let them try and pry my gun from my cold dead fingers! Too many of my friends have guns to allow that to happen! They will gladly continue using my gun as I did!

  • Comm_reply
    JonathanDS 02/15/2009 12:02pm

    See my above comment. And, they’ve taken guns before. Look at Katrina, where the police, federal agents, FEMA personel, US Military Personel, and Mexican Military Personel confiscated guns. It has happened before and it will happen again. Currently, 22 states have introduced bills to tell the feds to stop infringing on the constitution, do you think Obama cares what they say though?

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/19/2009 5:46am


  • Comm_reply
    DeeDeeJ1354 11/04/2009 9:27am

    I most certianly agree with you. Like many others WE!! the People!! of the UNITED STATES must keep the Constitution that our fore Father’s wrote alive. The government should track all past weapon offenders that are out of jail/prison with radom shakedowns.(the trouble makers). Keep our Freedom!!!

  • Anonymous 01/26/2009 4:54pm

    Guns are one of the few things people are still buying nowadays. With the way the economy is looking, I think it would be pretty irresponsible to support any legislation that is going to hurt the gun industry.

  • miles_d_cooper 01/27/2009 5:36am

    A will 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.

    Article 2 of the Bill of Rights was considered by our founding fathers to be the second most important amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some people think that it is the most important because it is our protection from corrupt government officials gaining control and trying to remove our God given liberties by force. There is no longer an even playing field, between the civilian population and the government controlled military, because of the regulations that we have allowed our government to place on all weapons. WE MUST NOT ALLOW them to take anymore away; we must have them remove most of the regulations that they have already imposed on the law abiding citizens. We must not let the United Nations get their way. The U.N. wants to totally disarm all law abiding American citizens.

  • Comm_reply
    CommonSense 06/16/2009 7:22am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Oh great. This makes a lot of sense. Maybe everyone should have mortars and land mines, too. No limits, right? What’s the problem, tens of thousands of hand gun deaths a year isn’t enough? You were born in the wrong century. You belong back in the 19th century.

  • Comm_reply
    stigmaticraven 10/18/2009 7:23pm

    The 2nd amendment is the teeth that backs up all our other rights and to tax these rights which have been paid for in treasure and blood is totally unacceptable,will they start taxing free speech next

    Guns kill people like pencils misspell words
  • Anonymous 01/27/2009 6:01am

    the fools in congress think that by banning legal gun ownership that they will have a safer sociaty and world.

    they need to view the video in the link below and get a grip on reality. if you ban the legal guns then the streets will be flooded with cheap, foreign guns.


  • Comm_reply
    CommonSense 06/16/2009 7:20am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Gun owners sound like a bunch of six year-olds complaining about bedtime. Try reading a book or taking a walk. Oh, and have you checked out the homicide rate by rifles and handguns? 30,000 a year. Canada has less then 1,000. Give me a break.

  • Comm_reply
    rugrat 08/09/2009 6:58pm

    US 307+ million
    Canada 30+ million and allot stricter gun laws.(Shouldn’t it be zero?)
    Their gun laws are almost a mirror image of H.R. 45 so did it work? NO the people who were for it say that 90% were registered. Against figure its closer to 30% (law abiding are now criminals). Most provinces don’t enforce it cost to much (didn’t have a problem with law abiding people before why try).Crime went up (police)Crime went down (for restriction).
    The 30,000 homicides every where I looked had figure’s around 55-60% were suicide’s (CDC website 99-07)
    The 30,000 was a total of gun shot deaths. It includes homicides,suicide’s and accidental. Most were suicide’s ( if your going to do it you will find a way gun or not). There were 3-4 time as many people killed by cars than guns in homicides.
    DC had the strictest gun laws but highest homicide rate with guns 21.7 per 100,000.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 01/30/2009 9:06pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Idiocy like this post is not helpful; it makes people reflexively want to support Bobby Rush just to avoid being on your side. If all you’ve got is racist crap to spew, then just shut up and don’t embarass the rational defenders of gun rights.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/03/2009 2:53pm

    Posts like this have little value here or anywhere outside a racist enclave where thinking is every bit as restricted as this HR 45 is.

    I have no use at all for this, anonymous, poster’s racist view, however,I am obligated to defend his right to his racist thinking.

    The fact is that people of ALL skin colors or races, ALL ethnicities, ALL religions, ALL nations commit violent crimes.

    Also, the weapon doesn’t matter. Take away the firearm, the bad guy will use a knife. Take away the knife, the bad guy will use a screwdriver. Take away the screw driver the bad guy will use a hammer or a rock. After that, a sharp stick, then a blunt one.

    There always have been and always will be weapons the only real way to be sure that there are no more weapons is to amputate limbs … and that’s just NOT gong to happen. Talk about being vulnerable …

    No, making laws AGAINST the law abiding citizenry (the majority), even the blatantly racist law abiding citizenry (most of whom are law abiding) only serves to ensure that that same law abiding citizenry will be at the mercy of the illegally armed minority when the realize that entire neighborhoods are undefended and so ripe for the taking.

    Interested in seeing something similar? Look to history …
    I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. – Douglas MacArthur

    Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. – Mao Tse Tung (when only the government and criminals have guns, the law abiding will be at their mercy)

    War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. – Mao again(is the U.S. government ready or willing to go to war wit its law abiding citizens)?

    Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler (head of Nazi SS. He implies that ONLY government entities shold have firearms).

    We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? – Joseph Stalin (do we remember him? If not, google him. He wasn’t a nice guy and he was deathly afraid of an armed populace. Hummmmm I wondr why).

    Enough of my rant.

Vote on This Bill

3% Users Support Bill

448 in favor / 15923 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments