TexasCHLforum.com

I.E. Johnson or Trump, do y'all think we might could start removing toys from the NFA list one by one? For instance begin with de-regulation of supressors, from there work our way down. I am not opposed (until you change my mind) to some regulations with full autos, but complete banning of manufacturing really does no one any favors.

I don't think there is a "pro gun" candidate running for President. Certainly not Trump, and I believe that Johnson has expressed some willingness for "common sense" gun control. I think the best we can hope for at the federal level is to not have any further infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I don't think there is a "pro gun" candidate running for President. Certainly not Trump, and I believe that Johnson has expressed some willingness for "common sense" gun control. I think the best we can hope for at the federal level is to not have any further infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

jb2012 wrote:I.E. Johnson or Trump, do y'all think we might could start removing toys from the NFA list one by one? For instance begin with de-regulation of supressors, from there work our way down. I am not opposed (until you change my mind) to some regulations with full autos, but complete banning of manufacturing really does no one any favors.

Perhaps with a republican president and congress we could get suppressors deregulated. That's as far as I think could even be considered realistic. It would be nice to be able to have access to SBRs and SBSs without having to deal with the BATFE, but even suppressors is a long shot.

As far as Trump being "pro-gun" or not, he has said some great things about the 2nd Amendment and seems to have shown a lot of willingness to talk to and work with the NRA, but by far the biggest impact on the 2nd A will come from having a supreme court that will shoot down any further attempts to infringe on the RKBA.

Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

I really have not looked into johnson at all, I was just told he was pro 2a; should have done more research on my end. I do seem to find pretty pro 2a though.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

:agree: A snowball in Hell comes to mind.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

<soapbox on> I don't see how it is unconstitutional for a state to not recognize a marriage license issued by another state (gay marriage), yet it is entirely constitutional for a state to not recognize a LTC issued by another state. <soapbox off>

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

^^^^^This^^^^^

I would go for Trump as the less of the threats to the Constitution

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

<soapbox on> I don't see how it is unconstitutional for a state to not recognize a marriage license issued by another state (gay marriage), yet it is entirely constitutional for a state to not recognize a LTC issued by another state. <soapbox off>

Because not all states issue handgun licenses and not all those who do are "shall issue" some are "may issue".

twomillenium wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

<soapbox on> I don't see how it is unconstitutional for a state to not recognize a marriage license issued by another state (gay marriage), yet it is entirely constitutional for a state to not recognize a LTC issued by another state. <soapbox off>

Because not all states issue handgun licenses and not all those who do are "shall issue" some are "may issue".

And importantly to the example, at the time the supreme court made this ruling some states did not allow same sex couples to get a marriage license at all, while other did. States had different requirements (blood tests, etc) that needed to be met in order to get a license if the couple was eligible in that state, etc.

State's have different requirements for getting drivers licenses also (drivers ed is required for those under 18 in some but not all states), yet all state's recognize each others driver's licenses.

jb2012 wrote:I really have not looked into johnson at all, I was just told he was pro 2a; should have done more research on my end. I do seem to find pretty pro 2a though.

Johnson is a good pick to draw votes away from Hillary as most Bernie folks don't want her or Trump. The more votes to the third party means Trump will win

twomillenium wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

<soapbox on> I don't see how it is unconstitutional for a state to not recognize a marriage license issued by another state (gay marriage), yet it is entirely constitutional for a state to not recognize a LTC issued by another state. <soapbox off>

Because not all states issue handgun licenses and not all those who do are "shall issue" some are "may issue".

It's not Constitutionally required for all states to recognize each others' drivers licenses, they just do. Just like lawyers & doctors & plumbers and A/C techs often have to license in each state. A marriage, OTH is "a public act" of a State and must be recognized by other states.


You don't get unmarried when you move to another State, but Texas can't grant you a LTC in New York. Congress can force NY to recognize your Texas LTC, but they haven't...

SECTION. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe
the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings
shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Johnson is not pro-gun and his running mate, former Mass. Governor, backed draconian gun laws. Anyone who believes he's changed his mind is drinking Jonestown Kool Aid.

Trump is definitely pro-gun and it's because of his gun-owning sons. What we can get passed in Congress is uncertain, but national reciprocity is a primary goal. Removal of suppressors as NFA items is certainly a possibility, as is the removal of SBR's. The latter is a stretch.

Oh yeah, Johnson has no chance of winning, nor to I want him to win.
Chas.

<soapbox on> I don't see how it is unconstitutional for a state to not recognize a marriage license issued by another state (gay marriage), yet it is entirely constitutional for a state to not recognize a LTC issued by another state. <soapbox off>

Because not all states issue handgun licenses and not all those who do are "shall issue" some are "may issue".

And importantly to the example, at the time the supreme court made this ruling some states did not allow same sex couples to get a marriage license at all, while other did. States had different requirements (blood tests, etc) that needed to be met in order to get a license if the couple was eligible in that state, etc.

State's have different requirements for getting drivers licenses also (drivers ed is required for those under 18 in some but not all states), yet all state's recognize each others driver's licenses.

Even more importantly to the example is that all states do issue marriage license and drivers license. (I don't necessarily agree with reason, just stating excuse most often stated against national reciprocity for Carry license.)