TexasCHLforum.com

One of the local radio stations did a great impression of him the other day (and it wasn't a news/talk station).

Obama: "Hope, hope, hope. Change, change, change."

So what do you think about (insert issue here)?
Obama: "Hope, hope, hope. Change, change, change."

I'm just hoping his cult of personality runs out, and people will actually focus on his record.

quidni wrote:We need another Ronnie Reagan.




Now we're talking!

Was it not during Ronnie Reagan's term... the end of funding to register machine guns with the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986?

How is he good? I'm confused.

McKnife wrote:

quidni wrote:We need another Ronnie Reagan.




Now we're talking!

Was it not during Ronnie Reagan's term... the end of funding to register machine guns with the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986?

How is he good? I'm confused.

Quidni and I... are of course speaking about his "entire" term as President and not about any particular "snapshot" of that time period. We are not basing our opinion of the man on a "single" subject or event.

But since you asked, if we look at the effect the FOPA had on gun owners...it adds a little balance to your charge.

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986

The FOPA (99th Congress, S.49), also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, significantly amended GCA68, providing gun owners some positives and some negatives. Specifically:

• Opens up interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis.

• Allows interstate transport of firearms in some circumstances. (Do not try to check in at a New York airport without NY permits. When you declare your firearms, they may arrest you).

• Makes it illegal for anyone to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.

• Provides any prohibited persons can get relief of their disability by applying to the Treasury Secretary. This has been repealed in practice by the program being specifically unfunded in the federal budget.

• It prevents the government from creating a list of gun owners from dealer records.

• Limits the number of inspections on a dealer by the BATF without a search warrant.

• Allows FFL holders to engage in business away from their normal business location, if at a ‘gun show’ in their home state.

• Allows ammunition shipments through the US Postal Service (a repeal of part of GCA68). • Ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing (the real stuff, not what Kennedy calls armor piercing).

• Prohibits civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.

• Redefines 'machine gun' to include those sets of parts or parts that could be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun.

• Adds serious drug offenses to the list of crimes receiving enhanced penalties.

• Doubles the penalties for use of a machine gun, silencer or muffler in a violent federal felony.

• Eliminates the FFL requirement for ammunition only dealers.

• Specifically states that those disposing of personal firearm collections do not need an FFL and to get an FFL firearms do not have to be a principle business activity.

The majority of the amendment is spent reducing the power of the BATF, who had a reputation for abusing its power

And you want to complain about this??????


Actually, this is what happened:
The Hughes Amendment

The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.


Yes, President Reagan signed it....and in doing so..got gun owners a pretty darn good deal IMO.

Thanks for the explanation.

McKnife wrote:Thanks for the explanation.

Happy to do it Sir!

KC5AV wrote:

dihappy wrote:The guy does have the gift of gab, :P

You know, if he was pro gun/2nd amendment as you and i, he wouldnt be half bad.

It really doesnt matter if it goes to McCain or Obama right now. I'm hoping for a Congress that will keep either of them in check.

Quoted for truth.

sadly, congress has been asleep at the wheel for a long, long time.

boomerang wrote:Didn't need no welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.

Boy the songs the Bee Gee's played
Movies John Travolta made
Guessing how much Elvis weighed....

Those were the days!

(Marge and Homer Simpson)

all the top 3 "front runners" are the same - they do not offer anything concrete except for raising taxes.

if anyone gets elected - it seems to be certain that one of them will, do not expect any miracle except for raising taxes and depreciating dollar.

for those who don't understand what depreciating dollar means, it means your life saving is draining away, thanks to the government, while you still have to pay debt and your living with less purchasing power.

dihappy wrote: I just wanted to ask under what law do they restrict a CHL holder from carrying on a public park just cuz a politician is speaking there?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. If it was an outdoor even and was not 'school sponsored', I'd like to know what statute(s) is the basis for their ability to disarm law abiding citizens.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

dihappy wrote: I just wanted to ask under what law do they restrict a CHL holder from carrying on a public park just cuz a politician is speaking there?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. If it was an outdoor even and was not 'school sponsored', I'd like to know what statute(s) is the basis for their ability to disarm law abiding citizens.

Obama qualifies for Secret Service protection. They can impose any rules they want to at his appearances (more or less). Their authority overrides state law.

I can't cite the specific sections of federal law or the CFR that provide for this, but I think that is the gist of it.

Tyrants love gun control.

Picture deleted.

Stupid wrote:all the top 3 "front runners" are the same - they do not offer anything concrete except for raising taxes.

McCain isn't my choice by far, but he's demonstrably better than either Clinton or Obama as far as guns go. The only thing I've found that I disagree with him on guns is that he wants to make private sales at gun shows illegal.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:They can impose any rules they want to at his appearances (more or less).

Please. Are you trying to get this thread fried? JMHO, but I think that picture you posted is totally inappropriate and way, way over the line. (One reason I didn't include it when quoting your post.) Let's try to keep it real, and tasteful, in the spirit of the standards of this site.

If you think that there is something wrong with the Secret Service having jurisdiction in situations like this, why not respond with a reasoned argument instead of an ugly and inappropriate photo of some Hitler rally?

They say one picture is worth a thousand words. But in this case, each one of them is a stain.

The founding fathers enumerated certain basic human rights in the constitution. They were wise.

Some politicians and government thugs deny people those basic human rights. They are evil.

I can't make it any more plain than that.

Thanks for deleting the inappropriate (IMO) picture.

I understand your opinion as to the question at hand (under what law can Obama's rally organizers prohibit CHL's from carrying weapons in a public park).

But the question wasn't whether or not we liked or agreed with whatever law was involved here. Obviously, you don't. And that's OK. But the question posed was simply "What law?"

I did my best to answer it, pointing out that the Secret Service is protecting Obama and that they have jurisdiction that overrides any particular state law. My answer could and would have been better had I the time to do the research so as to cite the specific federal law or CFR section that applied. But that can be tedious and I will confess to being too lazy and/or engaged in more interesting pursuits to do it. Others know their way around these things much better than I and could find the exact information much more quickly than I could.