I stumbled across this piece of legislation while researching drug laws - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 02-01-2005, 07:11 AM

I found this little bit of crap on the Senate website because "powder" and "act" both showed up a couple of times in the search.

Quote:

Handgun Licensing Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 899 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 899

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require persons to obtain a State license before receiving a handgun or handgun ammunition.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 25, 2003

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require persons to obtain a State license before receiving a handgun or handgun ammunition.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2 . STATE LICENSE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE A HANDGUN OR HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(z)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to an individual who is not licensed under section 923 unless--

`(A) the transferor (or a licensed dealer, if State law so directs or allows)--

`(i) has examined a valid handgun license issued to the individual by the State in which the transaction takes place, and an additional valid identification document (as defined in section 1028) containing a photograph of the individual; and

`(ii) has contacted the chief law enforcement officer of the State, and been informed by the officer that the handgun license has not been revoked; and

`(B)(i) 3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed from the date on which the transferor (or licensed dealer) received the information described in subparagraph (A)(ii); or

`(ii) the individual has presented to the transferor (or licensed dealer) a written document, issued not less than 10 days earlier by the chief law enforcement officer of the State in which the individual resides, stating that the transferee requires access to a handgun because of a threat to the life of the transferee or any member of the household of the transferee.

`(2 )(A) It shall be unlawful for an individual who is not licensed under section 923 to receive a handgun or handgun ammunition in a State unless the individual possesses a valid handgun license issued to the individual by the State.

`(B) Beginning 2 years after the date of the enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for an individual who is not licensed under section 923 to possess a handgun or handgun ammunition in a State unless the individual possesses a valid handgun license issued to the individual by the State.

`(3)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term `handgun license' means a license issued under a State law that--

`(i) provides for the issuance and revocation of licenses permitting persons to receive handguns and handgun ammunition, and for the reporting of losses and thefts of handguns and handgun ammunition; and

`(ii) at a minimum, meets the requirements of this paragraph.

`(B) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that a handgun license shall--

`(i) be issued by the chief law enforcement officer of the State;

`(ii) contain the licensee's name, address, date of birth, and physical description, a unique license number, and a photograph of the licensee; and

`(iii) remain valid for not more than 2 years, unless revoked.

`(C) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that, before a handgun license is issued to an applicant, the chief law enforcement officer of the State determine that the applicant--

`(i) has attained 21 years of age;

`(ii) is a resident of the State, by examining, in addition to a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028), a utility bill or lease agreement;

`(iii) is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a handgun under Federal, State, or local law, based upon name- and fingerprint-based

research in all available Federal, State, and local recordkeeping systems, including the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ; and

`(iv) has been issued a handgun safety certificate by the State.

`(D) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that, if the chief law enforcement officer of the State determines that an individual is ineligible to receive a handgun license, the officer shall provide the reasons for the determination to the individual, in writing, within 20 business days after making the determination.

`(E)(i) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that a handgun license issued by the State shall be revoked if the chief law enforcement officer of the State determines that the licensee no longer meets the requirements of subparagraph (C).

`(ii) The State law shall provide that, within 10 days after a person receives notice from the State that the handgun license issued to the person has been revoked, the person shall return the license to the chief law enforcement officer of the State in which the licensee resides.

`(F) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that, within 24 hours after a handgun licensee discovers the theft of any firearm from, or the loss of any firearm by the licensee, the licensee shall report the theft or loss to--

`(i) the Attorney General;

`(ii) the chief law enforcement officer of the State; and

`(iii) appropriate local authorities,

and shall provide that any failure to make such a report shall be punishable by a civil penalty as provided by State law, with a maximum penalty of at least $1,000.

`(4)(A) For purposes of paragraph (3)(C)(iv), the term `handgun safety certificate' means a certificate issued under a State law that--

`(i) provides for the issuance of certificates attesting to the completion of a course of instruction and examination in handgun safety, consistent with this paragraph; and

`(ii) at a minimum, meets the requirements of this paragraph.

`(B) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that the chief law enforcement officer of a State shall issue the handgun safety certificate.

`(C) The State law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall provide that a handgun safety certificate shall not be issued to an applicant unless the chief law enforcement officer of the State determines that the applicant--

`(i) has completed a course, taught by law enforcement officers and designed by the chief law enforcement officer, of not less than 2 hours of instruction in handgun safety; and

`(ii) has passed an examination, designed by the chief law enforcement officer, testing the applicant's knowledge of handgun safety.

`(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `chief law enforcement officer' means, with respect to a State, the chief, or equivalent officer, of the State police force, or the designee of that officer.'.

(b) DEFINITION OF HANDGUN AMMUNITION- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(35) The term `handgun ammunition' means--

`(A) a centerfire cartridge or cartridge case less than 1.3 inches in length; or

`(B) a primer, bullet, or propellant powder designed specifically for use in a handgun.'.

(c) PENALTY - Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting `, or (z)' before `of section 922'.

(d) TECHNICAL CORRECTION- Section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of such title is amended by inserting `or State law' after `section'.

(e) FUNDING-

(1) GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHING SYSTEMS OF LICENSING AND REGISTRATION- Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Attorney General shall make a grant to each State (as defined in section 921(a)(2 ) of title 18, United States Code), to cover the initial startup costs associated with establishing a system of licensing pursuant to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code.

(2 ) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- For grants under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be appropriated a total of $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and all fiscal years thereafter.

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act .

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT OF BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE.

Section 923(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) and inserting a semicolon;

(2 ) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G) and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(H) the applicant certifies that the business is covered by an insurance policy which provides personal injury protection, to a limit of $100,000, to any person who, while engaged in lawful activity, suffers bodily injury or death through the use of a handgun obtained as a result of the negligence of the applicant.'.

Now, my state permit will only be good for two years, I'll have to put up with a 3-day waiting period for ammo purchases, and anyone who owns a rifle that shares a caliber with a handgun is fucked. Write to your reps and let them know that you won't put up with this shit.

PS: NY TFP'ers, please refrain from voting for Jerrold Nadler next election.

izin · 02-01-2005, 08:27 AM

They might as well just spit in the founding father's faces. I've gotten so tired of reading all the stupid bullshit that the elected officials of the great states of Kalifornia and NY try to pass off as legislation. You're preaching to the choir here. It's outrageous that the ideas are entertained in the first place but the majority of the idiots in california and new york continue to state that these are the people they want respresenting them and that these are policies they support. I seriously doubt anyone on this board supports any of these candidates and they try to expose these crackpot schemes to any one that takes the time to listen to them. I know I do.

We deserve this kind of thing though. We tell them every election that this is what we want. As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad it's getting closer and closer. It won't change until people get fed up and draw a line in the sand and stand up and make these tyrants accountable. If it takes people like Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Charles Schumer pushing an anti gun agenda to do it then I guess I have to thank them because they will be the ones to finally push too far. Our freedoms are encroached upon little by little and day by day every day. We're becoming a country of dependants and sheep. Promise me more free stuff and that you'll take care of me so i can make stupid life decisions and have no accountability and I'll elect you even if it means I'm giving up everything that makes this country a free nation.

Republicans are no better than democrats. The Republicans may barter away our rights a tiny bit slower but in the end they value them as little as the democrats do as long as it keeps getting them elected. Fighting the little battles when they pop up like the 50 cal ban and concealed carry and waiting periods and licensing, is plugging leaks in the dykes with your fingers. I'd rather let the whole dyke break and start over. I'd rather it be me fighting than my kids or grandkids.

Cadwiz · 02-02-2005, 04:49 PM

What gets me is the fact these people have bodyguards that carry, and that doesn't seem to bother them. They are being protected from all those nutjubs out there with guns. We all know that the nutjobs always follow the law, so pretty soon there won't be any "legal weapons", and everyone will be safe. Thank you so very much!

TexanAvenger · 02-03-2005, 05:25 PM

^ That's right. Their bodyguards carry the firearms, meaning the bodyguards have to deal with the rules that govern their use, not the law-makers themselves (for the most part). Therefore, the law-makers generally don't have to deal with these restrictions firsthand and don't have to realize both what a pain in the ass it is and how much they're annoying gun owners. (A group I myself am not a part of, but plan to be in the near future... assuming it'll be possible to buy a gun.)

Dostoevsky · 02-06-2005, 07:27 AM

Liberal elements in our government will continue to take whatever steps they can to disarm American citizens. On that day, America will cease to be the same place. Without an armed citizenry, our country will no longer have it's most important check in place.....

Tophat665 · 02-06-2005, 08:58 AM

Look, is it really so much to ask that a weapon deadly at range be licensed?

I hear you about slippery slopes and and camel's noses, but, for real, shouldn't there be some way to know if the person who has a particular gun should have that gun?

Say you own a licensed handgun. It get's stolen. You call the police and let them know it's gone. It gets used to shoot somebody. Now you get your gun back after the trial. Say, instead, that you are a total bone-head and let your twelve year old get hold of it, and he takes it and gives it to a friend who sells it under the table. Way I see it, if you didn't report that gun missing, then you are responsible (in some degree) for any violence done with it.

So this is not (in general - I am sure the devil is in the details) unreasonable.

That's really all I have to say about it.

The_Dunedan · 02-06-2005, 09:20 AM

Actually, it is quite unreasonable. Every single "general confiscation" in history has begun with a registration scheme. And every single genocide, in a century filled with them, has been preceeded by a "general confiscation" of the weapons of the target group. Ask the German Jews, Soviet Cossacks, Ottoman Armenians, Cambodians, and Guatemalan Maya about how that game is played.

Cadwiz · 02-07-2005, 04:13 PM

Well Tophat, if it were that simple then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But you see, the "bad people" don't follow the laws anyway. That's what makes them "bad people". So these laws really aren't for them, they are for the people who try to follow the law. And we are the ones getting screwed in the deal.

izin · 02-07-2005, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Look, is it really so much to ask that a weapon deadly at range be licensed?

I hear you about slippery slopes and and camel's noses, but, for real, shouldn't there be some way to know if the person who has a particular gun should have that gun?

So this is not (in general - I am sure the devil is in the details) unreasonable.

I envy your naivete.

02-02-2005, 04:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cadwiz Insane Location: work	What gets me is the fact these people have bodyguards that carry, and that doesn't seem to bother them. They are being protected from all those nutjubs out there with guns. We all know that the nutjobs always follow the law, so pretty soon there won't be any "legal weapons", and everyone will be safe. Thank you so very much! __________________ Semper Fi

02-06-2005, 07:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	Liberal elements in our government will continue to take whatever steps they can to disarm American citizens. On that day, America will cease to be the same place. Without an armed citizenry, our country will no longer have it's most important check in place..... __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

02-06-2005, 08:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Look, is it really so much to ask that a weapon deadly at range be licensed? I hear you about slippery slopes and and camel's noses, but, for real, shouldn't there be some way to know if the person who has a particular gun should have that gun? Say you own a licensed handgun. It get's stolen. You call the police and let them know it's gone. It gets used to shoot somebody. Now you get your gun back after the trial. Say, instead, that you are a total bone-head and let your twelve year old get hold of it, and he takes it and gives it to a friend who sells it under the table. Way I see it, if you didn't report that gun missing, then you are responsible (in some degree) for any violence done with it. So this is not (in general - I am sure the devil is in the details) unreasonable. That's really all I have to say about it. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

02-07-2005, 04:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
Cadwiz Insane Location: work	Well Tophat, if it were that simple then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But you see, the "bad people" don't follow the laws anyway. That's what makes them "bad people". So these laws really aren't for them, they are for the people who try to follow the law. And we are the ones getting screwed in the deal. __________________ Semper Fi

02-01-2005, 08:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
izin Upright	They might as well just spit in the founding father's faces. I've gotten so tired of reading all the stupid bullshit that the elected officials of the great states of Kalifornia and NY try to pass off as legislation. You're preaching to the choir here. It's outrageous that the ideas are entertained in the first place but the majority of the idiots in california and new york continue to state that these are the people they want respresenting them and that these are policies they support. I seriously doubt anyone on this board supports any of these candidates and they try to expose these crackpot schemes to any one that takes the time to listen to them. I know I do. We deserve this kind of thing though. We tell them every election that this is what we want. As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad it's getting closer and closer. It won't change until people get fed up and draw a line in the sand and stand up and make these tyrants accountable. If it takes people like Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Charles Schumer pushing an anti gun agenda to do it then I guess I have to thank them because they will be the ones to finally push too far. Our freedoms are encroached upon little by little and day by day every day. We're becoming a country of dependants and sheep. Promise me more free stuff and that you'll take care of me so i can make stupid life decisions and have no accountability and I'll elect you even if it means I'm giving up everything that makes this country a free nation. Republicans are no better than democrats. The Republicans may barter away our rights a tiny bit slower but in the end they value them as little as the democrats do as long as it keeps getting them elected. Fighting the little battles when they pop up like the 50 cal ban and concealed carry and waiting periods and licensing, is plugging leaks in the dykes with your fingers. I'd rather let the whole dyke break and start over. I'd rather it be me fighting than my kids or grandkids.

02-03-2005, 05:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
TexanAvenger Born-Again New Guy Location: Unfound.	^ That's right. Their bodyguards carry the firearms, meaning the bodyguards have to deal with the rules that govern their use, not the law-makers themselves (for the most part). Therefore, the law-makers generally don't have to deal with these restrictions firsthand and don't have to realize both what a pain in the ass it is and how much they're annoying gun owners. (A group I myself am not a part of, but plan to be in the near future... assuming it'll be possible to buy a gun.)

02-06-2005, 09:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Actually, it is quite unreasonable. Every single "general confiscation" in history has begun with a registration scheme. And every single genocide, in a century filled with them, has been preceeded by a "general confiscation" of the weapons of the target group. Ask the German Jews, Soviet Cossacks, Ottoman Armenians, Cambodians, and Guatemalan Maya about how that game is played.