TexasCHLforum.com

The_Busy_Mom wrote:I think we may be a little too nearsighted right now. While reading this thread, I saw several iterations of "I know it won't pass" or "I am hoping it won't pass" or "If it passes, which I don't think it will...". I don't worry (too much) that a ban will pass in this legislative session. I do worry about the next. If the Republican and Tea Party base don't get their acts together and come up with some concise plans to get a hold of their base memberships and come together, the House will be lost, and then it won't be a matter of if, but when.

About 4 years ago, the day of the first election of the annointed one, I look at my husband and said, "Secede". He looked at me kind of funny. I have felt that way every day since. I was in a Facebook conversation with an anti-gun woman, and she said something to the effect that I don't need high capacity, automatic weapons because the 2A was written so that civilians could protect themselves from their government, and that she knew that would never happen in America today. I promptly informed her that I would take up arms at any time, against anyone or any group, that infringed on my Constitutional rights. Try me. Again, we have to get our like-minded people re-united instead of divided, lest DiFi get her wish in the next session.

cling wrote:

srothstein wrote:

cling wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.

It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

That depends on how you define working.

anygunanywhere specifically asked about Americans being able to keep firearms that are registered.

That was the question asked and answered truthfully. I have been able to keep everything I have on the national registry. His response to that dose of reality was ad hominem attacks. I thought there was a forum rule against that but maybe I should thank him for the reminder why I spend my online time in other venues.

Good luck to all of you. With friend like him, you're going to need it.

cling wrote:I explained how grandfathering can work and has sometimes worked in the past. Like it or not, it's true.
You asked how the "keep them if they are registered" thing works out, and I told you. Like it or not, it's true.

cling wrote: It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

cling wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Heartland Patriot wrote:And though I put nothing past the leftists, I still say its an issue of enforcement. And I still hang the question out to folks like gigag04 (only because I know he is an LEO, whether he answers or not is irrelevant): would you, if they pass this monstrosity or some version thereof, and you were to see someone at a shooting range with an AR, force the AR owner to show you their "papers"? If law enforcement doesn't like the question being asked, then they should ask themselves WHY they don't like the question. BTW, law enforcement has my complete and utter support in the pursuit of murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, and other assorted villains who are an actual danger to the public. But I still can't see how the exact length of someone's rifle barrel or, in a hypothetical gun registration/ban situation, the type of weapon they are using, makes a whit of difference, IN AND OF ITSELF, if it isn't being used to commit some crime such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. And I don't want to hear about how disregarding one law shows a pattern. MILLIONS of people break the speed limit from time to time every day...MILLIONS of people do NOT go around violently assaulting others or attempting to take property by force. Its the content of the law that makes the difference, IMHO. I put an "assault weapons" registration scheme in the same category with a law requiring the citizenry to genuflect when a national leader goes by...basically, as tyrannical and un-American on PRINCIPAL. I am not advocating breaking any laws, simply expressing a viewpoint as part of this greater debate.