TexasCHLforum.com

Now start handloading and get that group even tighter :)

God forbid, even those of us who choose to show that we have "Justice" on our side take responsibility for our actions, instead of use legal jargon to weasel out of a negligence of the 4 basic firearm safety rules.


This thread is very telling.

I absolutely love my Crossbread SuperTuck

Deltaboy wrote:That is an example of a Act of Stupid.

Fixed that for you

Well thanks to all the comments against it the rule change for CLEO sign off on Trusts has been delayed at least for another year. :clapping: See the link I posted below. If you have a Trust and use the new E-form process the wait times are down to about 4 months right now. A friend that I work wit...

I don't feel it is necessary, and I lost the url. I got the answer I was looking for pretty much unanimously.

Maxwell wrote:I'm curious. Was there a picture of the sign posted?

Yes I removed it. Sorry.

jwine wrote:If I could fit a 32" belt I would be your buyer but unless you throw in some kind of magic potion to slim down the ol' gut I will just have to wish you luck on selling

Yea, it's more of a skinny person belt.

I think you have a valid point. My question is: how do you reconcile this position with your earlier statement that all unintended discharges are the result of negligence stemming from a failure to adhere to the 4 rules of firearms safety? This would appear to place responsibility for all unintende...

It will always be negligence of the 4 rules of firearms safety. Thereby, negligence. Where would you find negligence cases where the operator did everything right and the gun did not function as designed? An example would be a slam fire like those that occurred in a few cases with the Springfield X...

Keith B wrote:We are in a circle. Property owners rights, known or not. Period.

Indeed. But that's why we have these discussions, because they have no clear winner.

So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying. The 30.06 sign is a good thing. ...

edit

If the 30.06 sign is improper you can just carry past it. IMO, there could be reasons for it or other issues by carrying past it. This has been discussed before. 1. The owner knowingly post an incorrect sign keeping the anti happy and allowing legally licensed CHL into his business because they kno...

If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law? If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding? A non-compliant 30.06 sign has no legal effect on a CHL holder. Are ...