Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1


    ----- Original Message ----- From: DONNA GROOM To: Bates, Barbara ; Brown, Mary Ann ; Carter, Dalma -- Sam ; Cathy ; Charles ; cmontgomery ; Greene, Heather ; Groom, Myron ; Groom, Neal ; Jan, Smitty and ; Jent, Evelyn ; McIntosh, Elizabeth ; Montgomery, Charlene ; Montgomery, Joe ; Morelock, Karen ; Nelson, Aletha ; Reaves, Beverly ; Renner, Wanda ; Shepherd, robin ; stewart, marjorie ; Tipton, Tommy ; Tipton, Wayne ; Tipton, Wayne Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:51 AM Subject: Important Issue: This is no joke! It will make most of us instant felons. We need to fight this tooth and nail, so PLEASE don’t ignore it if you own a gun or guns! B- please send this to everybody on your list...tks...sns Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:27:44 -0800 From: Subject: Fw: Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. To: r Have you got this in your scope? Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 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 is flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: •It is registered •You are fingerprinted •You supply a current Driver's License •You supply your Social Security # •You will 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 and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. •There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along. Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA. This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims. Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA .

  2. #2
    I found the bill, it is sponsored by Bobby L. Rush, of the 1st District of Illinois. His web site is most revealing, member of the Black Panthers and a Baptist preacher. This guy would appear to be a real piece of work. Does not appear to have a lot of power, but has visions of glory for himself. A true believer ... Check out these websites********** Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA More On Gun Grab HR 45 Here... ned=&q=HR+45&btnG=Search+News If I find out anymore I will post it.

  3. #3
    Such bills come up repeatedly and repeatedly fail. BH did not require physical and mental evaluation as claimed.

  4. #4
    Site Owner
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Madisonville, Texas, United States
    I thought I deleted that's over 2 years old.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Have y'all seen the latest? U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms. What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to: 1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership. 2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course). 3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp). 4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation. 5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights. Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” More from contributor Larry Bell Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle. As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations. If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it. There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%). Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home. Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment. So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment. Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously. Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both

  7. #7
    UN agreements such as this do not apply to citizens. They do not override a country's laws. Obama can sign, but it won't change the 2nd Amendment.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    South of San Antone
    OO dont think for a second that the UN agreements wouldnt effect the citizens of the US. Their decisions and agrreements effect us all the time and most folks never know about it. From fossil fuels to military actions they have a hand in it. Its big business on a global level. Its not just about disarmament think about it how many couintries have been affected by the UN as far as weapons, now how many have depended on the UN to come in with their troops (the puppets) and go into harms way to fix the problem. Now you cannot tell me that somewhere in the mix there are not some kinds of shady dealings going on funding the UN and its members somehow. In that kind of show "Someone" is profitting and now with the likes of who represents the US with the UN. Just think about it Clinton was mixed up in shady dealings before she became a senator what do you think would happen now if she could help the UN put sanctions against the US gun industry and the people in the US who own guns. She could write her own ticket, but not only her every other yahoo who is trying to aid the UN in this endeavor. They all stand to gain something, Obama included. Yes he can sign and may may not change the second amendment BUT he will then have a strong podium to change it in thier favor. If you will excuse the term he will have the ability to amend the amendment. Maybe not outright but little by little because the agreement would already be in place and slowly but surely one by one piece by piece it will change maybe not overnight but it can. Think about it before the Brady Bill came around there were a few outcried voices then it was enacted and slowly but surely every jerk with an adjenda has come out of the woodworks, some dumb as a box of rocks others pretty darn sharp and the fact that these radicals (thats what I call'em ) are now so devilish in their plite that they use closedoor tricks to try an slide their agendas onto the floor under the radar is proof that they will take little bits away until they have it all. Now I am not an educated man I didnt go to college or university but I am not a blind fool either my schooling was hard knocks and the University of U.ncle S.ams M.isguided C.hildren and I'm darn proud to have attended, but having schooled there I have seen and experienced first hand what the UN can and does do to US forces/citizens. Now if you have a U.N. council colaberated of these so called United Nations then why does the US always get called on first to do the dirty work and spearheading when the others are so to speak in the rear with a can o beer. BIG BUSINESS keep everybody hating us and then the sanctions will come easier later because of what the UN has had a loud voice in commiting us to. Its all good though we have some pretty sharp folks workin for us but we need to support them and stayed unified n get over this my way is better n your way crap. Its like the old adage goes you can take one arrow and snap it clean into but if you take a bundle of arrows and try n snap em well you got your work cut out........... anyway its somethin like that. You take care God Bless n shoot straight. STP

  9. #9
    You know, this is really getting old. Clinton signed it but did not get it ratified back in what, 1997? Obama made this a priority in 2009 and failed. "While the terms have yet to be made public..." CIFTA has been a matter of public record for quite some time.

  10. #10
    This makes me tired ! I agree with Double Naught, these things come up quite regulary. Don't believe everything you here.



Similar Threads

  1. To Those Who Bowhunt, REad This
    By txbhunter1 in forum Public Enemy #1?
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-18-2009, 06:36 AM
  2. big boar plus 4 long read
    By Guess in forum Rifle Hunting Hogs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 08:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts