TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:56 pm

ralewis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:46 pm
The pragmatist in me sees the tea leaves here, and we all need to do our part to be vocal with our elected officials. We also need to accept the reality that we may be faced with situation where our best option is negotiating for something we want. For example, I'd probably take mandatory background checks and some very tightly scoped and defined "Red Flag" law as long as we got National Reciprocity and a recognition that LTC holders who willingly submit themselves for background checks are recognized as not the problem and have restrictions on where we can carry be reduced.

Universal background checks would mean that one could not even gift or leave a firearm to their child without going through a background check.

Red flag laws are just begging for abuse. They could be used to unlawfully take guns away from any one of us. I am not sure I like the idea that someone can make a complaint against you and with zero proof the red flag laws can be instituted until you prove you are not a threat.

ralewis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:46 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:48 pm Firearms Policy Coalition statement on red flag legislation:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-stat ... mp-remarks

Excerpt:

FPC has been and remains strongly opposed to so-called “red flag” laws, also known as “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) statutes.

FPC also remains strongly opposed to expanding federal criminal statutes, including but not limited to those mandating “universal background checks”.

These proposed laws do not increase access to mental healthcare or improve public safety. They rely on expanding federal powers through further abuse of the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional, as well as dangerous.

I'm as pro gun as they come (CHL/LTC for 15 years now), and I've been around here since 2005 reading, learning, and participating in discussions around 2A issues. That being said though, IMO it's important to realize the way things are not the way we want them to be. Social Media and 24/7 news create an amplification effect and has increased the speed issues become front and center. Having several of these mass shooting events over a few weeks in the middle of a Presidential Election cycle has created a wave bigger than we've seen IMO. Our elected officials respond to (perceptions of) public sentiment.

The pragmatist in me sees the tea leaves here, and we all need to do our part to be vocal with our elected officials. We also need to accept the reality that we may be faced with situation where our best option is negotiating for something we want. For example, I'd probably take mandatory background checks and some very tightly scoped and defined "Red Flag" law as long as we got National Reciprocity and a recognition that LTC holders who willingly submit themselves for background checks are recognized as not the problem and have restrictions on where we can carry be reduced.

And I realize i'm going to get hammered here for uttering a scenario entertaining some policies because 'shall not infringe' means what it says. But in the real world we are subject to laws passed (even if the firmly believe they are unconstitutional) else we suffer great inconvenience. I'd actually love to see some constructive dialog on both sides coming at this from a risk management perspective vs a political one.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:21 am

jason812 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:58 pm From dog catcher to the presidency, it's going to be hard to vote for any Republican candidate in the future.

EDITED TO FIX TYPO

So, you're going to vote Democrat, then? Or just stay home and not vote, to protest? So that one of those purely anti-American Democrats can get into office? That's not a solution. I hate these proposed laws as much as anyone else, I think they are useless at best and actually unconstitutional, but letting a Democrat get into the Oval Office right now, that's a really, really bad idea.

howdy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:02 pm The people pushing these laws only touch the surface of what they really want. "Of course, we want to keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people, so we need "red flag" laws. Of course we want universal background checks to buy guns" What they don't cover is how many people will be denied due process when an ex girlfriend/boyfriend accuses them of being crazy or the fact that the government can't control people selling guns unless they know where all the guns are(registration). The law the House has passed allows the government access to all the background checks to purchase a gun.