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.

Do you like to blog? Do you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms? Then tell me about it!


Anyone is welcome to blog about gun rights here, and if you have something you would like to add to the defense of the 2nd amendment, send it to me. If it sounds good then I’ll post it on the website.


Email your blog to blogs@mygunsmyrights.com

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 Daniel White


Gun control advocates in this country know they are losing the hearts and minds of more and more Americans every day. Poll after poll has shown that support for gun control is at an all time low, repeatedly their agenda has been defeated in the courts, and pro-gun laws are still sweeping the country.


Ever since the “assault weapons ban” (AWB) sunset in 2004, they have been waiting for the right moment to try to get it restated. Now, five years later, some think they have that chance thanks to the Ft. Hood shooting. The fact that what have been arbitrarily defined as “assault weapons” by these activists were’t even used in this shooting is immaterial, this incident is little more than a means to an end for them.


They’ve already seized on reports that a FN Five-Seven pistol was used by Nidal Hasan, the killer at Ft. Hood who is being called a domestic terrorist by some. The Five-Seven was targeted by gun control groups right around the time that the AWB sunset as the latest demon gun that needed to be banned because it had armor piercing ammunition. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claimed to have successfully penetrated a bulletproof vest using the gun. While it is true that armor piercing ammunition does exist for the pistol, it is only available to law enforcement or military personnel. Whether Hasan had that kind of ammunition has not been released. What Brady forgot to tell you was that they used the second thinnest vest on the market, one that can be penetrated by many common handguns.


But this isn’t about truth, it is about agenda. Ever since they were invented there have been people who wanted to ban guns. Mass shootings in countries where guns have been banned tell us those bans don’t accomplish much other than to ensure that if someone does go on a rampage there is nobody there to stop them. Most mass shooting have one thing in common, they are ended at the barrel of a gun when someone is able to fight fire with fire.


An article posted after the Ft. Hood attacks highlights the illogic being used by the gun grabbers. Louis Klarevas, a Professor in the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, wrote an article called It’s the Guns, Stupid: Why Handguns Remain One of the Biggest Threats To Homeland Security. Part of his argument on why we are so stupid contains the following:

Think of this simple fact. According to the U.S. government’s National Counter-Terrorism Center, over 50% of the 11,770 terrorist attacks that occurred worldwide last year involved armed attacks. Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans).

I no longer wonder “if” a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. Absent the implementation of serious gun control measures, I now ask “when”?

Here’s some facts for us stupid folks to consider. Permits for owning weapons are available to the citizens of India, but the licensing process is so complex that very few citizens make the effort to legally obtain guns. The result of this is that the Mumbai terrorists had the run of the streets with very little opposition.


Here’s something else to think about. Klarevas lists 11,770 terrorists attacks worldwide. How many happened in the United States? Which country is decried for lax gun laws? It looks to me like there might be a connection! So, to answer Klarevas’ question, “when” will there be a Mumbai-style attack in the U.S.? When they are finally able to ban guns here, stupid!


Cleveland Family Examiner Becky Roob made a good observation when she stated:

The media are talking about the type of weapon and have named the store where it was purchased! Who cares about the store where, oh my, they sell guns? If I have a dinner party and one of my guests gets drunk and kills someone on the way home – will the media tell the name of the wine store where I bought the alcohol? This is stupid. The guy was a nut! He would have killed any way – any how if that’s what he wanted to really do.

Absolutely right. Taking it one step further, who is really to blame for the drunk driving accident, the person behind the wheel or the wine itself. Do we ban white zinfandel because of someone’s lack of judgment? Do we sue the vineyard for pressing the wine? Do we sue the seed company for providing the means to grow the grapes that made the wine?


Gun control advocates have an agenda to get rid of guns by any means necessary. They will seize on any tragedy to further their cause and will deny all logic that gets in the way. It is up to the American people to see through the lies and spread the truth.

Written by Spencer Aland


Since Obama won the Presidential election in 2008 gun sales in the Unites States have been soaring. Citizens feared that with a democratically controlled congress and presidency that gun rights would inevitably end up on the chopping block. In reality, gun rights have actually increased in America since President Obama took office – especially with the ruling of DC v Heller. President Obama had even stated on several occasions before he ever ran for public office that he actually believes the right to bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon militia service. And the number of democrats in congress that are supportive of gun rights makes it highly unlikely that any gun regulation will be on the docket anytime soon. While it appears that the general public may have over-reacted to the threat on gun rights it has actually given us a unique opportunity to look at what happens to crime rates as the number of private gun owners dramatically increases along with the number of conceal and carry permit holders.


More recently, the number of conceal and carry permit holders has more than doubled in most states. The surprising part is that in areas with the largest increase in conceal and carry permits we are also seeing the greatest reduction in violent crime. Although this is nothing new – as far back as 1997 there have been studies linking crime reduction with the number of conceal and carry permits – it is still surprising to many people when they hear about it, and many choose to disregard it.


Many advocates of gun control tend to sight that crime in general rises when gun are more present in an area. Generally speaking this is true, but the number of violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms actually decrease. It is believed that when criminals face a higher risk of encountering potential victims that are armed they tend to substitute into committing more petty crimes rather than more violent crimes. While the outcome of this criminal-substitution effect generally leads to an increase on overall crime it also decreases violent crime. This essentially leads to fewer crime related deaths and an overall better outcome. I guess President Obama actually has helped make America safer – so you can’t say he hasn’t done at least one thing.

The number of Americans in favor gun ban laws is now at an all time low meaning more Americans than ever are in support 2nd Amendment rights.