Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3809
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#76

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:57 am

carlson1 wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:15 pm
Obvious there are more people killed my drunk drivers. So the analogy would be then that every car sold should have an ignition interlock device (IID) installed even thou there are people like me that do not even drink.

More intrusion from the government on law abiding citizens.
Or to make it a bit more apples to apples, let's require every prospective car buyer to pass a background check showing that they have never been convicted of any crimes involving alcohol, or violence, and that they are not delinquent on child support.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3809
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#77

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:06 am

I saw a recent survey where 38% of voters (across all parties) said they would not believe that the next election was conducted fairly if their preferred candidate lost. So assuming they are evenly split, roughly 1/5th of the U.S. population will believe that the next President is illegitimate.

These are dangerous times, folks. And the absolute last thing we need is for the government to be taking any steps toward gun confiscation, which starts with a registry, of course.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

DEB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Copperas Cove, Texas

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#78

Post by DEB » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:11 am

I didn't say don't fight. Fight with all you got. But, don't pull away. I believe we can change our elected folk's minds. Easier to change those minds who are kinda with us, than to change the Communist. Patrick thinks that we are all in with him, otherwise he wouldn't have stated that he was willing to take an arrow from the NRA and reading what those who are on our side is writing about the NRA, can't blame him. Write him, don't give any money, but don't throw them out just to get something far worse? If he wins the primary, I will vote for him. The obverse is just too ugly and evil. Some folks it seems, want Civil War 2 or are placing their bets on the book of Revelation. War is a young man's game, especially something that awful and I am getting too old to go there. I want to give it all I can to at least maintain the line. But, not voting? Or, complain that Voting is what caused this current predicament? True voting did move us there, but how many like minded folks even vote? If we turn blue, we ain't going to get those rights back. They are gone. Won't be any Civil War either, neither is Texas going to kick outsiders out and secede. Talk about Revelations, you are right. It ain't supposed to get any better, but what if it ain't the end times? It just might be the end times for the U.S. which will be pretty horrible for many of us as it is. So, don't vote, don't get involved, I can't change folk's minds, if they just want to hide out and accept the over lordship of their Communist masters so be it. I believe we are at the point where there isn't but two choices, that's it, no more. I guess folks need to lose some weight anyhow and it is a bunch easier just to complain, blame others and do what your told by the party, even if you didn't sign up. Only my take, not a politician nor a Preacher, so follow your own weird and I will follow mine. :tiphat:
Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Teddy Roosevelt"
U.S. Army Retired, (Sapper). VFW Life Member.


cirus
Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#79

Post by cirus » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:29 am

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:10 am
I believe the real issue is that Republican or Democrat, many these politicians are ultimately elitist who are in reality not fans of the people. They are fans of themselves. They all get armed security so self defense is not really their concern. Their main concern is to keep their power and wealth. Unfortunately this means that many of them will ride the momentum if it helps them to secure their position of power in the end. All they really ever needed was an excuse and possible permission to weaken the average persons ability to take away what the elitist power structure values most, the ability to make the rules. Unfortunately fear, on the heals of mass shootings, and lack of foresight by people to understand what losing the ability to resist authoritarian rule means in the end, has helped pave the way for many of them to do what is in their own best interest.
:iagree:


cirus
Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#80

Post by cirus » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:33 am

This country is to far gone. No amount of voting or talking will set it straight. It may delay the inevitable but it will be solved the old fashion way.

User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 7915
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: DFW area

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#81

Post by 03Lightningrocks » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:49 am

carlson1 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:59 am
The problem will be the good people who just believe what they hear.

I had a meeting yesterday with a man who likes to target shoot and owns a couple of handguns. After we took care of what we met for we started talking about all the news on guns lately. He doesn’t have a LTC, but he was under the impression that if bought a firearm at any gun show there was no background check. After explaining the law for less than one minute he said, “then there is no “gun show loop hole.” BINGO.
This is something I have run into also.Tagging one to one private sales as a "gun show loophole" has many people thinking that gun shows are a free for all in gun buying. I believe there are many people who do not realize there is already a back ground check for firearm purchases.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 25004
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#82

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:37 pm

TxRVer wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:06 am
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:28 pm
Mayor of Forth Worth is in DC right now, lobbying for expanded background checks and red flag laws. She’s trumpeting that ripe old cheese that 72% of Texas gun owners want this. And she’s GOP, all the way.
Assuming 72% is correct, what percentage of the people polled think you can walk into Walmart, plop you money down on the counter, and walk out with the gun of you choice?
92%. :mrgreen:
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.


Grayling813
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:18 am

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#83

Post by Grayling813 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:55 pm

cirus wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:33 am
This country is to far gone. No amount of voting or talking will set it straight. It may delay the inevitable but it will be solved the old fashion way.
I find myself thinking this daily as I peruse the daily progression by the socialists and the daily sellout by the party known as republicans.

Who knows what history will say 100 years from now...guess it depends who wins this civil war.
If you have one set of laws for the members of the government and another set for everyone else, you are not being governed, you are being ruled.

User avatar

TxRVer
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:21 pm
Location: Red Oak

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#84

Post by TxRVer » Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:15 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:37 pm
TxRVer wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:06 am
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:28 pm
Mayor of Forth Worth is in DC right now, lobbying for expanded background checks and red flag laws. She’s trumpeting that ripe old cheese that 72% of Texas gun owners want this. And she’s GOP, all the way.
Assuming 72% is correct, what percentage of the people polled think you can walk into Walmart, plop you money down on the counter, and walk out with the gun of you choice?
92%. :mrgreen:
:iagree:
Charlie


ShepherdTX
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#85

Post by ShepherdTX » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 am

This disappoints me but I did have an idea in my head about this whole background check "we have to do something" thing.

What if instead of mandatory background checks between private persons, they were simply incentivised similar to what was recently done with 30.06 signs where there are liability protections to business establishments who choose not to post 30.06?

In other words, if one chooses to privately sell a gun and include a background check (or, I would also add if buyer has a current LTC), should that gun be used in a future crime, the seller has PLCA type protection and cannot be held civilly or criminally liable? That still frees up private transfers without background checks between those that want that protection and those do not need or want it because the parties are related or are lifelong friends, or really whatever reason they have not to do one. To me this would make a BGC a more attractive option to lawful gun owners without making it mandatory.


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#86

Post by TreyHouston » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:37 pm

ShepherdTX wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 am
This disappoints me but I did have an idea in my head about this whole background check "we have to do something" thing.

What if instead of mandatory background checks between private persons, they were simply incentivised similar to what was recently done with 30.06 signs where there are liability protections to business establishments who choose not to post 30.06?

In other words, if one chooses to privately sell a gun and include a background check (or, I would also add if buyer has a current LTC), should that gun be used in a future crime, the seller has PLCA type protection and cannot be held civilly or criminally liable? That still frees up private transfers without background checks between those that want that protection and those do not need or want it because the parties are related or are lifelong friends, or really whatever reason they have not to do one. To me this would make a BGC a more attractive option to lawful gun owners without making it mandatory.
One question. How many times has the firearm been sold since said person bought it. Is there a grandfather clause? What if the firearm was stolen but not reported as the victim bought it used and didn’t write down the serial number? What if it was stolen but the person had no clue it was stolen/lost. What then? Sounds like a lot more laws to cover these loopholes- ie gun registration
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#87

Post by Flightmare » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:07 pm

ShepherdTX wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 am
This disappoints me but I did have an idea in my head about this whole background check "we have to do something" thing.

What if instead of mandatory background checks between private persons, they were simply incentivised similar to what was recently done with 30.06 signs where there are liability protections to business establishments who choose not to post 30.06?

In other words, if one chooses to privately sell a gun and include a background check (or, I would also add if buyer has a current LTC), should that gun be used in a future crime, the seller has PLCA type protection and cannot be held civilly or criminally liable? That still frees up private transfers without background checks between those that want that protection and those do not need or want it because the parties are related or are lifelong friends, or really whatever reason they have not to do one. To me this would make a BGC a more attractive option to lawful gun owners without making it mandatory.
No! I refuse to say a person is guilty of someone else's crime! People who want to go thru the FFL process already have that as an option. This proposal would not have addressed the issue in Odessa, nor any of the other mass murders that I am aware of. Doing something for the sake of doing something is not wisdom, it is an emotional response.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016


ShepherdTX
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#88

Post by ShepherdTX » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:26 pm

Flightmare wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:07 pm
ShepherdTX wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 am
This disappoints me but I did have an idea in my head about this whole background check "we have to do something" thing.

What if instead of mandatory background checks between private persons, they were simply incentivised similar to what was recently done with 30.06 signs where there are liability protections to business establishments who choose not to post 30.06?

In other words, if one chooses to privately sell a gun and include a background check (or, I would also add if buyer has a current LTC), should that gun be used in a future crime, the seller has PLCA type protection and cannot be held civilly or criminally liable? That still frees up private transfers without background checks between those that want that protection and those do not need or want it because the parties are related or are lifelong friends, or really whatever reason they have not to do one. To me this would make a BGC a more attractive option to lawful gun owners without making it mandatory.
No! I refuse to say a person is guilty of someone else's crime! People who want to go thru the FFL process already have that as an option. This proposal would not have addressed the issue in Odessa, nor any of the other mass murders that I am aware of. Doing something for the sake of doing something is not wisdom, it is an emotional response.
That's actually the point. Yes, you can go through FFL now, but there's entire groups out there dedicated to destroying someones life for a legal sale and there's currently no protection for civil or criminal lawsuits. All this is intended to do is offer a layer of protection for private sellers who want it and deal with the antis trying to force more gun control down our throats.

Never claimed this was intended to stop a mass shooting. If you want to stop a mass shooter, shoot back.


jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#89

Post by jason812 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:01 pm

ShepherdTX wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:26 pm
Flightmare wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:07 pm
ShepherdTX wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 am
This disappoints me but I did have an idea in my head about this whole background check "we have to do something" thing.

What if instead of mandatory background checks between private persons, they were simply incentivised similar to what was recently done with 30.06 signs where there are liability protections to business establishments who choose not to post 30.06?

In other words, if one chooses to privately sell a gun and include a background check (or, I would also add if buyer has a current LTC), should that gun be used in a future crime, the seller has PLCA type protection and cannot be held civilly or criminally liable? That still frees up private transfers without background checks between those that want that protection and those do not need or want it because the parties are related or are lifelong friends, or really whatever reason they have not to do one. To me this would make a BGC a more attractive option to lawful gun owners without making it mandatory.
No! I refuse to say a person is guilty of someone else's crime! People who want to go thru the FFL process already have that as an option. This proposal would not have addressed the issue in Odessa, nor any of the other mass murders that I am aware of. Doing something for the sake of doing something is not wisdom, it is an emotional response.
That's actually the point. Yes, you can go through FFL now, but there's entire groups out there dedicated to destroying someones life for a legal sale and there's currently no protection for civil or criminal lawsuits. All this is intended to do is offer a layer of protection for private sellers who want it and deal with the antis trying to force more gun control down our throats.

Never claimed this was intended to stop a mass shooting. If you want to stop a mass shooter, shoot back.
Then how about getting a law passed that says if you unknowingly sell ANY item to someone who intends to harm others, you cannot be held liable? If you sell a car to somebody who then mows people down on a side walk, should you be held liable for not doing a back ground check?

No more infringements, we have enough.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 7892
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick attacks NRA and Supports expanded background checks

#90

Post by RoyGBiv » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:04 pm

Let's help draft a law we can live with....

-- No registration
-- Exceptions for people with whom we have a close relationship (family)
-- Exemption for temporary transfers (loaner)
-- Free Online check for eligibility of the buyer (NICS online)
-- Free Online check for any theft claims on the weapon
-- Printed receipt for each party
-- Transaction records immediately deleted

I have less heartburn over background checks than I do over Red Flag laws, which will, I guarantee, be abused by everyone, from irate Ex's to socialist petty tyrant lawmakers. Even if they made it a Felony for false reporting, even if they made it easy to win civil judgements for false reporting, even if they made it a 3-day bench trial guarantee.... Lots of people, including LEO's, will be unnecessarily put in harms way trying to enforce false reports.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”