Impact Of Blair Holt Act - Part 1

In the next few posts, I will be breaking down HR 45, the Blair Holt Act, and providing comments on each of the sections. The effective date of this bill is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act (Title IX, Sec. 901).

After contacting my state representatives, I received a reply from Senator Crapo who voiced his strong opposition to gun control. With his permission, I will post his reply, and hope that a lack of response from Idaho’s other senators and congressmen do not indicate their support of this bill.

As I will clearly show, this bill is unabashed gun control and the summary that I previously posted was a sales pitch for the bill. It did not contain any of the bill’s ramifications. I probably won’t hit every point in the bill, but certainly the big ones.

This post initiates the series, beginning with Section 2, Findings and Purposes. The purpose of the bill is:

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.
Comment -
I’m really concerned with the “other purposes” for which this bill will be used. Any time you have an open-ended statement like this, every purpose in which this bill can be applied is an “other” purpose.

Both President Obama “cling to their guns and religion” and Vice President Biden (who voted No on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence and voted No on more penalties for gun and drug violations) are committed gun control proponents (see OnTheIssues.org).

In addition, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced from Mexico City that Right-Wing extremists including “military veterans who have difficulty reentering civilian life” are potential terrorists. It’s surprising to me that Left-Wing extremists, who have proven time and again to be prone to violence, were not mentioned as a threat.

Remember that Secretary of State Clinton, also speaking from Mexico City, blamed the United States for Mexican violence by being unable to control the illegal gun trade to Mexico. The statistics she used were distorted, and it is evident that the Obama Administration is systematically demonizing guns and gun owners.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that–
(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature;
Comment -
True, it is commercial in nature, however in making this statement, Congress views all firearms as nothing other than commercially controllable items that are no longer a Right to own, but a Privilege granted by the Federal Government.
(2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;
(3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;
(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;
Comment -
The only way to control interstate (between states) “gun trafficking” is to control intrastate (within the state) “gun trafficking”. Montana is fighting this federal intrusion with House Bill 246, the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.
(5) gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and
(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.
(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–
(1) firearms trafficking is prevalent and widespread in and among the States, and it is usually impossible to distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate trafficking; and
(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.
Comment -
This congressional presumption directly conflicts with our Founding Fathers who went to great lengths to ensure freedoms such as the right to bear arms, and limit the power of the federal government with provisions such as states’ rights. They believed that this type of control was neither in the nation’s best interest nor within the role of the Federal Government.
(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are-
(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;
(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;
Comment -
This bill will impose a national, mandatory, firearms test. Without this firearms qualification, it will be illegal to own a firearm.
(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and
(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.
Comment -
Our justice system has become so weak on prosecuting criminals that someone else needs to be blamed. This is evident with Vice President Biden’s support in prosecuting gun manufacturers rather than criminals, and is the only reason I can think of for facilitating the tracing of firearms.

In the next post, I will discuss the Definitions section of the Act.