TexasCHLforum.com

Moby wrote:I took classes, underwent a complete background check, and had to prove competency (although I thought it far too easy) to get my CHL. I agree Americans should be allowed to own firearms and carry them. I agree Americans should be allowed to own assault rifles with high capacity magazines. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home defense. It's about the government understanding that it's people are well armed and if the government over steps it's power too far, trouble could and has followed. That being said, I would have no problem having to take classes on the proper use, storage, laws pertaining to assault weapons.

The problem with this idea is that in order to require classes, you must first know that someone seeks to own an "assault" weapon. That means registration. Furthermore, "assault" weapon must be defined. That leaves room for political meddling.

There should be one requirement for owning weapons of any kind. You must pass a state background check that shows you are not a felon and that you are mentally sound. Period.

Moby wrote:Just like my CHL required a background check for me, a background check for my family to ensure no mentally ill individuals would be around said firearm would also be OK with me. I would even go so far as to agree that proof of adequate safes are owned in order to own assault weapons. But take those assault weapons from the citizens, and we move towards a slippery slope. I want the federal government to be very aware its populace is well armed and thus they need to follow the constitution. However I am not for a class 3 firearms requirement which is nothing more than taxation and registration. The first step toward confiscation. But for bigger more powerful rifles of military capabilities I have no problems with a little more scrutiny on who owns them.

Again, this requires registration. Any time there is registration there are "fees" (taxes) which are subject to confiscatory levels at politicians' whims. This must be avoided at all costs. It is bad for freedom.

Moby wrote:And I’m perfectly OK with background checks required at all gun shows.

So, are you, as a private gun owner, willing to pay for the background check for every person who expresses an interest in your guns you have for sale? Because that's what you're advocating. Dealers already are required to do background checks. Pass a law that requires private owners at gun shows to run background checks and they'll simply sell their guns in other venues. People aren't stupid. They will avoid paying for something in order to maximize their profit.

Moby wrote:Like different types of licenses are required to drive different sized vehicles, proof of more advanced classes could be required for more powerful weapons.

Driving is a privilege. Ownership of firearms is a right enshrined in the Constitution. They are not the same thing. This type of thinking needs to be eradicated.

Would you require different licenses for different levels of speech? If not, why not?

Moby wrote:Not something recorded by the government but by certified instructors. Like an NRA Assault Weapons safety class.

Completely unworkable. At a minimum the government would have to inspect the instructors' records. Who will compensate the instructors for the expense of recordkeeping? Who checks to make sure the instructor isn't letting his friends through without actually taking the course? Now you have a department of investigators to ensure the instructors aren't gaming the system. More bureaucracy, expense and opportunity for meddling in our rights.

Moby wrote:The owner (mom) was responsible for access to that AR15. And while very heartbreaking I feel if she had a mentally ill son it was her responsibility to ensure isolation of her fir arms. Just like in Texas if a kid gets a hold of my firearms it’s my fault. What if you had to show a course completion for assault rifles and high capacity mags? We get a better trained civilian populace and a safer citizenry. But I’m not for government registration.

Now you're on to something. I know it's outdated and old-fashioned, but personal responsibility is the key. Despite all the laws on the books, the simple act of responsibility by the mother would have at least increased the killer's difficulty in obtaining the weapons he desired if not changed his plan entirely.