TexasCHLforum.com

sparx wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Here are some "toys" for them. I wonder if they'd pass the test?

That's some of the best "urban cammo" I've ever seen! Those stickers add that "special" touch that you just don't see much of, but are most effective!

And the rifle's name is Penelope!

Here is one from Collectors Firearms that should meet the new specification. Brightly colored and reflective to boot.



http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin ... temID=7482

OHH MY EYES!!!

What a shame, that's an Elite II. Such a waste of a fine pistol.

Gentlemen, I think we are missing a much bigger issue here.

KBCraig wrote: Toy guns that don't fit the city's paint/reflection criteria would be illegal even if kept inside a private home or vehicle, council members said.

How in this world can they claim authority over a toy inside of my own home??? This is an outrage, an invasion of privacy, and a crime! If two homosexual males can do "whatever they want to as long as its within their home"(even if it would be illegal anywhere else), then, by God, I should be able to have a replica airsoft gun in my closet.

I think the Dallas City Council is setting themselves up for major Constitutional lawsuits, which they rightly deserve.

This is a stupid idea alltogether but this privacy invasion is the worst part of all!!!

kauboy, we're not missing the point, just making light jokes of the title post "Note for Dallas gangstas".

Oh believe me, I picked up on the humor. But I also noticed that nobody has made a serious comment about that portion of the article. That is the part that concerns me the most. We all know that this idea is incredibly flawed, but its definately within their jurisdiction to enact it. However, it is NOT within their authority to say what I can or cannot have within my own home.

It's people that are trying to do soooooo much good that they wind up doing wrong.

One of these day's it will all be sorted out!

"And that's all I gotta say 'bout tat!" -- Forest Gump.

I must admit that I'm not surprised by this attempt. I do have to applaud the ONE individual who voted against this.

I have a cousin who has quite a collection of AirSoft guns. I know he has a MP5 and AK47 mockups.

My younger brothers each have multiple AirSoft pistols. Many of which have either had their orange tip removed or painted over. I don't have a problem with this because I know they wouldn't hold up a convenience store with them.

I do not see how this proposed "solution" would actually help. sure you might be able to tell the difference between a real gun and a toy, but thats not the problem. Its the individuals who are USING the toys in a manner other then they were intended. Its not the TOY at fault, its the loser holding it.

how they think they can control what's INSIDE the home is completely beyond me. Maybe it would be good if they pass this so we can all get together and sue the ever loving snot out of Dallas for Constitutional infringement.

1TallTXn wrote:I must admit that I'm not surprised by this attempt. I do have to applaud the ONE individual who voted against this.

Re-read the story; he voted against it because he wants an outright ban on toy guns.

KD5NRH wrote:
he voted against it because he wants an outright ban on toy guns.

The city gov is in a pretty sad condition.