TexasCHLforum.com

I understand “the shall not be infringed.”

My understanding it’s illegal to shout fire in a theatre. A judge recently ruled pointing your finger at some one like a gun is disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct and a lot of people here said “hades yeah” it is.

So even our cherished first amendment has limitations.

Arms, does that include suitcase thermonuclear weapons?

Cruise missiles with conventional warheads?

Well maybe if your 18.

Felony murderers after they are released from prison on parole?

I’d rather us pick our poison.

Legal concealed carry was sold to the Texas legislature because it would allow people to defend themselves, if another Luby’s happened.

We let them down, there were three mass shootings and there were no LTC’s to stop it. ( yes the church shooting was stopped by a citizen with a gun ) The fourth in Texas was a gun free zone, not our fault.

Walmart has always been very good to us and we weren’t there to stop it.

They have reacted. Moderately. They still allow us to conceal carry.

Our politicians will be under pressure when they resume, we need to help them, guide them.

Allowing us access, to voluntarily search the their database for a private gun sale, does not infringe.

I think it’s a great idea.

I’m just still not sure how to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Most now seem to have a pattern of buying a new semi automatic rifle and going and committing mass murder. Through the news they have learned exactly which gun to buy to kill the most.

Anyone notice the new article about Las Vegas, the guy left a note in the room, where he calculated the bullet drop to the concert across the street.

thatguyoverthere wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 2:06 pm Interesting.

Your suggestion is interesting, but I was more referring to my response to your question.

I had typed out a long well stated (IMHO) response and reasoning and my feelings about several related subjects. But after reflecting on what I had written, and considering today's climate, let me considerably edit my response to your question.

Here is my response: no.

But it did solicit a better idea. Give private gun sellers access to the database.

Not mandatory but allow access.

I like that.

I will make that my suggestion to the politicians.

Thanks all!!

I’m going to get flamed but I’m ready for it.

What if their was a law requiring private gun sellers to get three notarized letters from the buyer stating that they have known the person for five years, the person is of sound mind, the person to their knowledge has never been convicted of a crime, does not abuse drugs, and they would recommend that person for a gun purchase.

The gun seller would be required to keep the letters for five years.

Failure to get the letters or to keep them would subject the seller to civil liability should the person commit a crime with the gun sold to them.

Buyers would be responsible to immediately report a gun theft made through a private sale.

What if it was for buyers only under 26 years of age?

I would rather us write the new law than politicians.