There is a troubling piece of legislation going through Congress right now that anyone who values gun rights should be aware of.

What H.R. 45 Does


The legislation has three main components.


1. Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.


2. Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.


3. Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.


To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records — including mental heath records — to the Attorney General’s office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an “appropriate” fee of $25 per firearm.


Additionally, every firearm sale would be recorded in a database, which would track the serial number, make, model and identity of the owner. The legislation would also make all private sales of firearms illegal, and a felony offense.


In addition to these regulations, the legislation includes excessive regulations and penalties for bureaucratic missteps from simple failures to report address changes to failure to report stolen weapons.


Provisions of H.R. 45 include:


– Requires passing a written examination to purchase a firearm.

– Releases medical records – including confidential mental health records – to the Attorney General for Government review.

– Requires a two-day waiting period on all firearms purchases.

– Institutes a fee of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

– Creates a national database with all firearms and firearms owners registered by serial number with the Federal Government.

– A Federal ban on all private firearms sales.

– Increases in penalties for clerical errors related to this national firearms registry.

You can read the full text of the bill here.

Written by Spencer Aland


Far too often people think the solution to solving gun crime is to just take all guns away instead of developing ways to be able to track down illegally used guns. Well instead of spending money to print out new paperwork for legal gun owners some police forces are developing technology to track down illegal guns. The new system is called ‘ShotSpotter’ and it uses highly sensitive microphones designed to pick up specific gun shot sounds within city limits. The system uses these microphones in different locations to triangulate within a few blocks where a gun has been shot, all within a few seconds.


The system is great in the fight on gun crime because it can often alert police before anyone can call 911. There is no invasion of privacy because it only targets the illegal use of weapons within city limits, and if a law abiding citizen has to defend themselves with their firearm the police will be able to come and assist them more quickly.


This is what the government needs to be spending more time and money on- systems and tools to fight illegal gun use and gun crime, and not legal gun owners.

Written by John Lott


Shouldn’t an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that “a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan’s attack.


The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster’s husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband “still scheduled for deployment in January” to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?” — It is hard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN’s listeners probably didn’t understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.


The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army’s ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.


Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. — in which more than three people have been killed — have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.


For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called “cop killer” gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don’t fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer’s vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.


For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.


John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Written by Spencer Aland


I am not a hunter, or for that matter even a gun enthusiast. I do enjoy occasionally going out with friends and family for a little trap shooting. But apart from my intermittent outings I rarely shoot, nor do I have any desire to hunt. I do not own a handgun, and I am not even a member of the NRA. Why then do I blog nearly every day about gun rights? There are a couple of answers to that question. Firstly, I want people to understand that not all gun rights advocates are gun wielding extremist; you don’t have to own a gun to believe in a person’s right to own one. Secondly, I truly believe that it is a natural and necessary right that people both need and require in today’s world.


As I stated earlier, I am not a gun enthusiast. I think I only went out shooting guns twice this past year – I golf much more than I shoot. But it angers me when far left individuals speak as if anyone who supports gun rights is a uneducated redneck who would rather shoot someone rather than talk to them. The truth is that all people, gun lovers or gun haters, can see the benefits of the 2nd amendment. Those who do not even attempt to understand the philosophical reasoning behind gun rights are as closed minded as the stereotypes they pretend to combat.


The primary reason I write about gun rights, however, is that I believe gun rights are necessary in our world today. From the beginning of civilization people have had the need to defend themselves. Some of the greatest catalysts for ingenuity and creativity throughout history have come from man’s insistent attempts to better defend himself, his family, and his property. Will there ever come a day when we no longer feel the need to protect ourselves against other people and our governments? I certainly hope so. I absolutely believe in creating a better world, but unfortunately that time is not now. Even the most democratically run governments in the world often need to be reminded that they work for the people. The individual in today’s world is not appreciated enough within the opus of society to feel comfortable without defensive rights. The rights of individuals to protect themselves, even against government, is instrumental in bringing about a society where individuals are protected enough to willingly lay down their weapons. You cannot have a free society where individuals are forcibly disarmed. Disarming citizens leads to an imbalance between individualism and collectivism, which will inevitably lead to an unbalanced and autocratic future.