TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.click2houston.com/family/133 ... etail.html

The poll at this link sways in an obvious direction...

But if you could take away the link, and see the context inside the story, what do you think???

I know its a loaded question, pardon the pun...

There shouldn't be gun ownership permits to begin with.

I voted no because I don't want anyone telling me I am too OLD.

OTOH, the thing happened in IL, which explains a lot.

Back a very long time ago some guy ordered his daughter, age six or thereabouts, a gun through the mail. It was pre GCA'68 and he did it to make his anti gun nut point about "ANYONE" being able to order a gun through the mail. It was written up in one of the national magazines, like Life , Post, Newsweek, or Time.

I don't take "polls" on web sites seriously, but y'all better vote on this one because it's currently 90% Yes.

IMO there should be no fixed limit at either end of the age spectrum. Only criminal history or mental incompetence should be disqualification for having weapons.

- Jim

I believe an age limit is needed, just like a drivers license. Tools to be used by responsible, mature/adult individuals. If 16 is old enough to drive a 4000 lb metal object, that can go 0-60 in 5 seconds, top speed of 150 mph, 16 is old enough to be a gun owner.

I believe no permit should be required, so the poll really has two issues in one, or is the permit CHL? Either way, no permit should be required.

The poll question is too vague to be meaningful, except for propaganda purposes.

The story (in case it goes away) was about a man in Illinois who got a Firearms Owners Identification card (FOID) for his newborn baby. In Illinois, you need an FOID to possess a firearm or ammunition. (I think you might need a FOID to touch a firearm legally, but I'm not sure.)

- Jim

As a school teacher, I can tell you that I have a serious problem with younger adolescents having guns w/o adult supervision. In my seven years teaching, two of my students have experienced gun shot wounds while they were students of mine. (I don't know about others that have had injuries before or after meeting me.)

Neither of these boys were out for premeditated murder, but were simply foolish and careless (as middle schoolers usually are).

The first was shot with a BB gun while he and a friend were running inside his house shooting at eachother while the parents were gone.

The other one was playing with his gun and shot himself in the foot. (I don't remember the type of rifle he was playing with.)

I'm sure I'll get bashed for this opinion, but I know this cohort. And most are a few fries short of a happy meal.

An ownership "permit" or simply permission to purchase/own a firearm ??

Permit- NO !!

Permission:
Maximum age limit-- No

Minimum age- yes-- I feel one should be considered an "adult" ( by age anyway...) and thus responsible, from a legal standpoint, for actions resulting from such ownership.

Venus Pax wrote: The first was shot with a BB gun while he and a friend were running inside his house shooting at eachother while the parents were gone.

um... well maybe i shouldn't say anything

and it is a loaded question. age limit to purchase, ok. permit to purchase, no no.

seamusTX wrote: IMO there should be no fixed limit at either end of the age spectrum. Only criminal history or mental incompetence should be disqualification for having weapons.

Jim

Venus Pax wrote: As a school teacher, I can tell you that I have a serious problem with younger adolescents having guns w/o adult supervision. In my seven years teaching, two of my students have experienced gun shot wounds while they were students of mine.

A valid point, and of course I don’t want any child to get hurt, but how many students have you had in that seven year time span? 2 out of how many had accidents?

Or more importantly, how many students during that time span had access to firearms, and did not hurt themselves or others? Would it be “fair� to limit their access to firearms since 2 had accidents?

Venus Pax wrote:As a school teacher, I can tell you that I have a serious problem with younger adolescents having guns w/o adult supervision.

IMHO, it's a family issue, not a legal one.

Minors cannot legally acquire firearms today. If the kids have them, the parents allowed it (perhaps through negligence).

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The poll question is too vague to be meaningful, except for propaganda purposes.

The story (in case it goes away) was about a man in Illinois who got a Firearms Owners Identification card (FOID) for his newborn baby. In Illinois, you need an FOID to possess a firearm or ammunition. (I think you might need a FOID to touch a firearm legally, but I'm not sure.)

- Jim

Yes, under most circumstances you need a FOID to even touch a gun.

OTOH, I think the father is now eligible for arrest for the fraud he committed.

IL FOID "rules" are very strange. When I left IL, I tried to change my address, and IL revoked my FOID instead. I spent a lot of time on the phone with a Lt. up there who insisted that they hadn't actually revoked my FOID, which according to IL law has to be for cause, they had only "administratively canceled" it. Semantics aside, there was nothing in IL law at the time that said someone who moved out of state would lose their FOID, there was also a supposed provision for out of state FOID, but nobody ever got one that anyone knew of.

When I tried to insist that she provide me with a written copy of the administrative rules that resulted in the revocation of my FOID, she told me that it wasn't written and that even if it was she wouldn't send me a copy because I wasn't eligible, and that it wasn't a revocation, it was an administrative cancellation, which did not require a cause.

Further argument was futile, and then she hung up on me, and never responded to registered mail.

jimlongley wrote:Yes, under most circumstances you need a FOID to even touch a gun.

OTOH, I think the father is now eligible for arrest for the fraud he committed.

What fraud? He properly filled out the FOID application in the boy's name, and then signed as the parent, as required by the form for all children under 15.

Kevin

I don't think there should be a legal age requirement, either minimum or maximum. I like the way the Ill police explained it. If they are under 18, they need to be supervised by a FOID holder, so if a 16 year old wanted to go rabbit hunting with a .22, he would either need a parent or himself to have a FOID.

If there is a requirement for an FOID, I like the way ILL has theirs. If the applicant is under 18, he needs a parent's signature. In this case, the parent did sign and give permission. What business is it of the state how he decides to raise his child?

jimlongley wrote:I voted no because I don't want anyone telling me I am too OLD.

Good point!!!

This is parallel with the whole "raising" the minimum wage issue...

If we do that, why don't we cap the high end of the equation??? Right???

Of course I do not believe in either, and that how you are compensated should be based upon demonstration and results of your work...

In this case, I believe we practice good judgement...We monitor our own...

And if a child is not mature enough to handle firearms on their own, they do not do so on their own without supervision...

Thats how it worked for me...And it worked out pretty well...