TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:23 pm 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.

I don't mean to be rude, but...

a) in what universe do we get to write the laws instead of the politicians? That's literally their job, and they aren't going to give it up to a layman.
b) why are any new restrictions necessary?
c) how are they constitutionally supported?
d) would they help? How?
e) how could they be exploited?
f) this particular plan might be worse than the ones the politicians are thinking up. What if the buyer has no friends? What if they just moved and lost contact with people who've known them? What if their family vouches for them because "he's a good boy"? What qualifies anyone to make statements about another person's mental ability to own a gun (except perhaps a medical professional who specializes in that)? What qualifies a person to judge the validity of such "evidence"? Why is it up to the social justice system of person rating to determine someone's ability to access their constitutional right??

I get that you're trying to "cut 'em off at the pass," but the intent of "cuttin' 'em off" in all those old westerns was to stop them with violence, not help them. That context is valuable here as well. Don't help the enemy; draw a line in the sand and quietly wait for them to cross it.

How did you end up with this list?

I personally would like to have access to NICS if I was selling guns and I only deal with people who will do a bill of sale but your list is ridiculous.

I have bought several guns via texasguntrader though and have never had any problems.

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 read the title of this thread, I haven't read your post yet.

The answer is no.



I went back and read the post

Still no.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 2:51 pm

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!!

...and if they agree, then what? They will make it mandatory. How will they enforce this? Registration.

I will not support ANY infringements on the 2nd.

Ever.

Every time there's a shooting and it looks like new gun laws may pass, gun owners come out of the woodwork with suggestions on how to lose more of our rights

MadMonkey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:22 pm I will not support ANY infringements on the 2nd.

Ever.

Every time there's a shooting and it looks like new gun laws may pass, gun owners come out of the woodwork with suggestions on how to lose more of our rights

It's real simple, if you sell a gun that is used in the commission of a crime, YOU are held responsible for that crime. That means that if you sell a gun to Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza or any of these other mental crazies that shoot up a kindergarten, YOU are the dumbass that gets charged.

No second amendment infringement, just sweet justice for putting a firearm in the hands of a madman.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:35 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:31 pm Read this...

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What he said....

This^^^^^^

E.Marquez wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 2:47 pm So my grandfather would need to get these letters to pass on his guns to me?
If I die this afternoon, and did not have the forethought to get these letters in advance of dying in a car accident..my firearms can not be transferred to my wife and sons?
If I stay as grumpy as I am today, it is likely I will not have the three required "friends" to testify and crate these letters....so my weapons must be what, destroyed? Turned in to the government to the government?


What if, what if we asked congress to write a law, that makes it illegal to take possession of a weapon if prohibited and then convicted those that take possession anyway? That should work...Oh wait we have that law but either they are not tried, or given light sentences.

What if, what if we asked congress to write a law, that makes it illegal to sell or give a weapon to a prohibited person.. Oh wait we have that law but either they are not tried, or given light sentences.

The government is not even going after prohibited persons that fail a NICS check from a FFL transfer for an actual prohibition felon, drug issue, mental issue, domestic violence, restraining order(vice an administrative issue, mis matched address, ect) If they wont go after, investigate, charge if appropriate (the two time felon, the domestic violence, ect) convicted person..the ones that self ID them selfs as having committed a criminal act (attempt to take possession of a weapon when they know they are prohibited

I’m going to write in E.Marquez for POTUS in 2020 .... if he’s not too grumpy to serve. Seriously though, he’s absolutely correct.

1. Existing laws are frequently not enforced, even when the perp is reported to police/ATF/FBI by conscientious gun store employees and/or other responsible citizens.
2. Because those laws are rarely enforced, we don’t know if they would actually work or not.
3. Also because those laws are rarely enforced, we can’t reasonably expect that new laws would be enforced any more assiduously.
4. And because we don’t have a reasonable expectation that new laws would be enforced any more conscientiously than the old laws, we can’t know of the new laws will work.

Furthermore, even if such a law controlling private sales were passed, and even if gov’t said, "no really....THIS time we're serious about enforcing the law", this law would be unenforceable. It depends entirely on the buyers/sellers self-reporting, and there are any number of reasons why someone would not. Moreover since there are literally hundreds of millions of firearms already in private circulation out there, many of which have been completely legally sold and resold several times. There’s simply no way for the gov’t to know who has what.

And philosophically speaking, this is exactly how it should be. The opposite of the status quo is de facto gun registration, and that should be avoided if at all possible. We should WANT gun ownership to be as anonymous as possible. Self-reporting private gun sales would peal back the anonymity.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:31 pm

MadMonkey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:22 pm I will not support ANY infringements on the 2nd.

Ever.

Every time there's a shooting and it looks like new gun laws may pass, gun owners come out of the woodwork with suggestions on how to lose more of our rights

It's real simple, if you sell a gun that is used in the commission of a crime, YOU are held responsible for that crime. That means that if you sell a gun to Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza or any of these other mental crazies that shoot up a kindergarten, YOU are the dumbass that gets charged.

No second amendment infringement, just sweet justice for putting a firearm in the hands of a madman.

This is a frightening end around. I've been wondering when this will be proposed. Not in a free society....

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:23 pm 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.

You gotta be turning Walmart on us.

All gun control measures would not work. It takes only a one and only desperate kookoo to go supernova and we are back to square one.
Aim well and Shoot precisely back as as soon as you can.
Train often. Be ready.

Robert*PPS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:44 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:31 pm

MadMonkey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:22 pm I will not support ANY infringements on the 2nd.

Ever.

Every time there's a shooting and it looks like new gun laws may pass, gun owners come out of the woodwork with suggestions on how to lose more of our rights

It's real simple, if you sell a gun that is used in the commission of a crime, YOU are held responsible for that crime. That means that if you sell a gun to Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza or any of these other mental crazies that shoot up a kindergarten, YOU are the dumbass that gets charged.

No second amendment infringement, just sweet justice for putting a firearm in the hands of a madman.

This is a frightening end around. I've been wondering when this will be proposed. Not in a free society....

So you think a toddler should be able to have a gun? I'll assume no. And if a toddler get his meemaw's gun and blows his sister's face off so her brains are coming out and look like chewed up hot dogs, do you arrest the toddler? Or do you arrest the meemaw?

So either you think mentally unstable people should have guns or you think people that give them to a mental person should be punished. Or you want to give a toddler the chair. Disgusting.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 2:51 pm

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!!

So out of all the answers of “no” you found a couple of gun control infringements you can live with and would offer to your elected officials as proof of your willingness to further compromise our rights?

For the record my answer is absolutely no. Compromising one thing after another is how we have ended up on the door step of losing our rights completely.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:56 pm

Robert*PPS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:44 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:31 pm

MadMonkey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:22 pm I will not support ANY infringements on the 2nd.

Ever.

Every time there's a shooting and it looks like new gun laws may pass, gun owners come out of the woodwork with suggestions on how to lose more of our rights

It's real simple, if you sell a gun that is used in the commission of a crime, YOU are held responsible for that crime. That means that if you sell a gun to Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza or any of these other mental crazies that shoot up a kindergarten, YOU are the dumbass that gets charged.

No second amendment infringement, just sweet justice for putting a firearm in the hands of a madman.

This is a frightening end around. I've been wondering when this will be proposed. Not in a free society....

So you think a toddler should be able to have a gun? I'll assume no. And if a toddler get his meemaw's gun and blows his sister's face off so her brains are coming out and look like chewed up hot dogs, do you arrest the toddler? Or do you arrest the meemaw?

So either you think mentally unstable people should have guns or you think people that give them to a mental person should be punished. Or you want to give a toddler the chair. Disgusting.

You are repeating gun controller talking points so I have to assume that is what you are.