TexasCHLforum.com

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... -the-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us see how, the US House Republicans Majority would vote and how the House Speaker would react. If any gun ban ever passes both chambers, I anticipate a new Federal Party is Born.

Interesting coincidence that HR141 in the 112th Congress was the Bill to Repeal Obamacare.

No details posted yet..
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of those bills are positives...

Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow!

As Mark Twain stated: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

I am a NRA member and I do NOT agree with those proposals. I have to ask the criteria of their poll. Did they sign up 5 liberals, then poll them for this so called NRA members agree? I do applaud those 2 from TEXAS and KENTUCKY with their ideas.

texanjoker wrote:I am a NRA member and I do NOT agree with those proposals. I have to ask the criteria of their poll. Did they sign up 5 liberals, then poll them for this so called NRA members agree? I do applaud those 2 from TEXAS and KENTUCKY with their ideas.

The mention of NRA members disagreeing with NRA leadership came from Rep Jim Moran, a Dem. He is pro-gun control, and like many people, is prone to hyperbole at times. I have no idea if he was quoting any kind of actual study, and if so who did it, or how it was done. Maybe he was quoting some study, but that would surprise me given Moran's bombastic style. It would not surprise me that some NRA members would disagree with the organization's positions; it's a big group (about 4 million, according to the NRA) and in any group there will be differing opinions.

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. 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. And I’m perfectly OK with background checks required at all gun shows. Like different types of licenses are required to drive different sized vehicles, proof of more advanced classes could be required for more powerful weapons. Not something recorded by the government but by certified instructors. Like an NRA Assault Weapons safety class. 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.

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.

baldeagle wrote:Furthermore, "assault" weapon must be defined.

I really wish folks would stop using the term "Assault" rifle/weapon for any evil black rifle that "resembles" a modern military weapon. No sane military on the planet today would issue a semi-automatic "look alike" to a actual military rifle to its front line troops, and that's exactly what a semi-automatic AR-15 type weapon is. Under the proposed ban, a tiny .22 cal. "Cricket" would be an "assault rifle" if you put a grip on it, and the .22 cal. Olympic Games Small Bore target rifle would be too because of the grip and/or thumb hole stock.

I too would like to know 'who' was actually polled, curious of him to name it that.

Specifically, the popular provisions in the legislation would:

• Require background checks for every gun purchase (74% NRA member support);
• Require background checks on gun shop employees (79% NRA member support);
• Prohibit individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms (71% NRA member support);
• Require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen (64% NRA member supports); and
• Establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits (63-75% NRA member support for each standard)

http://moran.house.gov/press-release/mo ... ntroduces-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;“nra-members’-gun-safety-act”

Moran is from Fairfax, Va which might as well be DC because most of the residents work for the Federal Govt.

Extremely left wing area, so I would look at anything the gentleman introduced with a very jaundiced eye.

My Pop was and 2 of my 3 brothers are NRA life members. Growing up Outdoor Life, American Hunter, Field and Stream, and Boy's Life were liberally strewn through out the house and stacked in the garage for reference. The last time we were all together was early October 1994 in the Rubys for mulie season.
Alternately freezin' our buns off or roasting same around the fire, drinking cowboy coffee and lying everyother sentence as we recounted what we saw or had a shot at that day, the "Assault Weapons Ban", just recently passed, was a topic of converation and somewhat heated debate.
While non-NRA brother and I argued that the ban was a gross infringement of our 2A rights, NRA brothers argued no big deal because it didn't impact their bolt action rifle collection(in a munificent variety of calibers) or the field/utility pistols we all carried(Nevada Constitutional Open Carry), and besides you couldn't hunt with one of those "plastic rifles" anyway, so whats the big deal.
Pop was a WWII and Korea vet and said that he'd had all the experience he needed with "Military Weapons" and saw no need for them in general circulation(never mind that damn near ever rifle in that camp had a Mauser or Mauser clone action) so he was okay with the ban.
I wonder how many members of the NRA are of that opinion now? My brothers attitudes haven't changed in the last decade and a half. We lost Pop in 2001, but he wouldn't have changed either.
So, one family 60% support or unconcern over another "AWB" maybe the Dems numbers aren't that far off.

P.S. Dang, recounting that time has stirred up some old memories.....I need to find a Model 57 w/3 inch barrel.

G26ster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Furthermore, "assault" weapon must be defined.

I really wish folks would stop using the term "Assault" rifle/weapon for any evil black rifle that "resembles" a modern military weapon. No sane military on the planet today would issue a semi-automatic "look alike" to a actual military rifle to its front line troops, and that's exactly what a semi-automatic AR-15 type weapon is. Under the proposed ban, a tiny .22 cal. "Cricket" would be an "assault rifle" if you put a grip on it, and the .22 cal. Olympic Games Small Bore target rifle would be too because of the grip and/or thumb hole stock.

I'd have to defer to the *expert* Sen Feinstein who personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012 in order to draft laws defining it.
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=61091&p=751093&hil ... s+#p751093" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I of course, am an architectural engineer now, I personally looked at pictures of buildings in 2007 and again in 2010.

I looked at pictures of animals on the Internet in 2008 and am almost a Veterinarian ...

I think I'll become a Chiropractor now, I saw some Halloween pictures of skeletons ...

Oh ... here's pictures of teeth .... Where's my drill...