TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.

With due process of course...

'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...

So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?

You might get a liberal judge and see this as a win for them to dis-arm you.

apostate wrote:

ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.

And yet some people seem fine with crazy people killing with explosives or by other means, just as long as they don't use a gun.

How many times in the last year has a person ran a car into a crowd and killed people, and yet no one is calling to ban vans or cars. People will always find a way to do harm to one or another. I consider a person drinking and driving a crazy person; do I want them to ban beer....NO! and yet drunk drivers will kill more teens this year than school shootings.

ninjabread wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and Generalissimo Acevedo will get a job there.