Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:07 am
I'm super young, so I'm left wondering, whats GOA stand for?
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
That's a valid point and a threat we must be constantly addressing. We saw it as we improved the Texas CHL statute and we'd better do it in the federal level in spades!30Carb wrote:Where we are missing each other is the "mission creep" element, . . .
You are absolutely right! We lost the BCRA fight in the Legislature and in the Supreme Court, primarily for the reasons you stated. Everyone thought the NRA was using Chicken Little's line "the sky is falling" and ignored our warnings. It wasn't that House Members and Senators had turned on us, but they thought we were over-reacting. I couldn't count the times I was told "it'll never pass; if it does Bush will veto it; and if he doesn't the Supreme Court will strike it down." Well they were wrong and we lost the battle. Of course, we also became the "media" and our message went out anyway. That’s why McCaine wants to amend BCRA to “close some loop holes.� Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?30Carb wrote:BCRA (McCaine-Feingold Act) comes to mind. Many organizations fought against this unConstitutional bill; lots of folks didn't because they thought the courts would strike it down later: it was part of their "strategy". Of course, it was no strategy at all: it was a hope. And a hope is a feeling, not a strategy.
We agree again! The entire COTUS has been under almost constant attack since the Roosevelt court packing plan in the 1930's and the expansion of the Commerce Clause is in my opinion the greatest threat. Justice O'Connor's statement that the Supreme Court must look to opinions from courts of other countries to render opinions more in line with world opinion and values is terrifying. Even more terrifying is the fact that the U.S. House didn't immediately start impeachment proceedings and that my colleagues in the Bar didn’t raise our voices in unison against this absurd notion. There is but one standard for U.S. Supreme Court justices - the United States Constitution. (Sorry, this is a real hot button for me.)30Carb wrote:Even now, I consider the 2A (and the COTUS) to be in deep trouble, highly compromised.
I do the same thing and didn't mean to imply you were trying to hide anything.30Carb wrote:I kept my PDO name for use on this board because it simplifies bookkeeping and I'm not trying to hide anything.
I respect that and fully agree.30Carb wrote:However, we can argue amongst ourselves about the route and the strategy all we want or need to, so long as we have the same goals: "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
S397 hardly "leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage." This would require an entirely new statute, but we've already covered this in detail.Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage, . . . While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become compulsory.
Yep, just a friendly disagreement. I've had stronger disagreements with my wife of 32 years and we're still together and neither of us has drawn down on the other!stevie_d_64 wrote:Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
Charles and I are on the same side of the fence. The only difference is I'm paranoid and pessimistic, and he is neither.stevie_d_64 wrote: Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
Thats a good analogy...30Carb wrote:Charles and I are on the same side of the fence. The only difference is I'm paranoid and pessimistic, and he is neither.stevie_d_64 wrote: Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
If S. 397 is the bill finally selected, then us gun folks can only hope and pray that when we celebrate the victory of legal protection for the firearms industry, that we have not become Troy celebrating the victory of capturing the Trojans' Horse.
That's a great analogy! I'm going to use it in D.C.stevie_d_64 wrote: Thats a good analogy...
Delivered with the intent to cause "pause" in the process...A "mental double-take" does wonders for the cause...Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's a great analogy! I'm going to use it in D.C.stevie_d_64 wrote: Thats a good analogy...
Chas.
Wouldn't that require registration? How would the cops know what houses to search for safe and secure storage of guns or would they just do random home searches? Where have I heard this story before. Is history not tought in public schools anymore?If gun locks become standard issue, how long will it be before the anti-gunners whine that although everybody gets issued such a lock, not everybody USES them faithfully. So then they'll urge us to pass a law requiring their use, perhaps even on guns that the owners want to have quickly accessible for home defense, and they might add some kind of monitoring or home inspection clause so that cops can come into your home to check for the safe and secure storage of your guns.
Think "RFID". Does making the lock be RFID capable require an act of Congress or just a statement from the BATF? I surely don't know. Anyway, the cops just drive past your house and pick up an RFID signal from a firearm lock and the next thing you hear is a knock on the door from your neighborly leo. I mean, who could claim that making a lock RFID capable was an infrigement on your right to keep and bear arms? For Pete's sake, its a lock not a gun we're talking about here.dws1117 wrote:Wouldn't that require registration? How would the cops know what houses to search for safe and secure storage of guns or would they just do random home searches? Where have I heard this story before. Is history not tought in public schools anymore?If gun locks become standard issue, how long will it be before the anti-gunners whine that although everybody gets issued such a lock, not everybody USES them faithfully. So then they'll urge us to pass a law requiring their use, perhaps even on guns that the owners want to have quickly accessible for home defense, and they might add some kind of monitoring or home inspection clause so that cops can come into your home to check for the safe and secure storage of your guns.