TexasCHLforum.com

TexasCajun wrote:Repealing the current slate of gun control laws is unlikely at best, . . .

It's not unlikely, it's impossible. Remember, the thread is about extending background checks. I was stating what should happen, not what will happen.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

I'd point out that I could claim the exact opposite. Giving too much sovereignty we end up with a patchwork of gun laws. There has to be a minimum standard. On a 1000 mile road trip, I spend hours reviewing laws, taking notes, then appropriately breaking down firearms in to separate compartments with various combinations of locks and in-accessible locations. I've got to make sure I don't have a rifle clip that's illegal somewhere... It's ridiculous. There are states that that I detour for hours to avoid (Illinois).

As you point out, you already have a patchwork of gun laws, if you want to consider state to state. No federal law, other than the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 has worked to protect Second Amendment rights, so there's no reason to expect a change in future years. I also said state laws should be subject to the Second Amendment.

Chas.

The GCA 1968 and all amendments, as well as the NFA should be repealed. Gun laws, if any, are issues that should be dealt with in the states, subject to the protections of the Second Amendment. The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

Chas.