TexasCHLforum.com

Could help but notice your on the NRA ballot. My question What is your stance on the ownership of weapons covered under the NFA?

Not trying to speak for him, but I have noticed in his posts over the years he consistently supports liberty.

I am not trying to speak for Charles either, but if you asked me the same question I would ask for you to be more specific.

WildBill wrote:I am not trying to speak for Charles either, but if you asked me the same question I would ask for you to be more specific.

NFA controlled items include suppressors, machine guns, RDIAS, lighting links, machine gun sears, short barreled shot guns, short barreled rifles, AOW & destructive devices. And I'm talking about ones that are registered with BATFE, not illegal items.

baboon wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am not trying to speak for Charles either, but if you asked me the same question I would ask for you to be more specific.

NFA controlled items include suppressors, machine guns, RDIAS, lighting links, machine gun sears, short barreled shot guns, short barreled rifles, AOW & destructive devices. And I'm talking about ones that are registered with BATFE, not illegal items.

Not to put word's in Charles' mouth either, but I suspect that he'd prefer they were not BATFE controlled beyond whatever controls are already in place for regular firearms. I don't think suppressors should be controlled at all. They are simply a matter of good manners.

Tag...

baboon wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am not trying to speak for Charles either, but if you asked me the same question I would ask for you to be more specific.

NFA controlled items include suppressors, machine guns, RDIAS, lighting links, machine gun sears, short barreled shot guns, short barreled rifles, AOW & destructive devices. And I'm talking about ones that are registered with BATFE, not illegal items.

I suspect most of us know what NFA items are. The specificity he was asking about is in regards to "his stance"? What, exactly, are you asking?

jbarn wrote:

baboon wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am not trying to speak for Charles either, but if you asked me the same question I would ask for you to be more specific.

NFA controlled items include suppressors, machine guns, RDIAS, lighting links, machine gun sears, short barreled shot guns, short barreled rifles, AOW & destructive devices. And I'm talking about ones that are registered with BATFE, not illegal items.

I suspect most of us know what NFA items are. The specificity he was asking about is in regards to "his stance"? What, exactly, are you asking?

Definition of stance (n)
Bing Dictionary
stance[ stanss ]
attitude toward something: an attitude or view that somebody takes about something
I want to know if he is for or against private ownership of NFA!

I'm certainly not gonna vote for another NRA Board member that is like old Joaquin Jackson just because he's from Texas.

You might get a response sooner if you send him a PM.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:You might get a response sooner if you send him a PM.

Anygunanywhere

Was hoping for more of a response in an open forum. PM can't be seen by all.

why so defensive ?

Charles is a very busy individual and may not have seen this post in particular. If you send him a PM and ask if he will respond here in the topic, I am sure he will post when he gets time.

To the OP, other members here have asked legitimate questions of you seeking clarification and specificity of your original question. You've responded with what could best be described as mild annoyance/condescension. Not sure what is your aim, but I'll rephrase again for the general benefit.

Asking someone's "stance" on "NFA" is broad and open ended, much like a poorly constructed "question" from a lazy TV news reporter who says merely "talk about X" as if that's a question.

Are you asking if he supports NFA as is? Are you asking if he supports changes to NFA making it either more or less restrictive? Are you asking generally if he supports the very idea of civilian ownership of NFA items (based on your reference to Joaquin Jackson I'm wondering if this is the point of your question)?

Anyway, Charles can speak for himself but the follow up questions asking you for clarification/specificity were made in good faith and deserve better than your mildly condescending answers.

Thanks

baboon wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:You might get a response sooner if you send him a PM.

Anygunanywhere

Was hoping for more of a response in an open forum. PM can't be seen by all.

Just offering a suggestion, Mr. Baboon.

Anygunanywhere

As others have noted, your question is very broad, so my response will have to be broad as well.

I think regulating the possession of a tool rather than the misuse of that tool is both ineffective and an affront to a free society.

I wish the NFA had never been passed and I wish it would be repealed. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen in my lifetime, if at all. I also would like to see Tex. Penal Code Chp. 46 repealed and focus on misuse of weapons, not their mere possession. That too isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

Since the NFA isn't going to be repealed, it should be narrowed to cover only fully automatic firearms and truly destructive devices or what I call area weapons such as cannons, grenade launchers, etc. There's no reason to regulate SBRs, suppressors, etc. I also believe that the local LEO sign-off should be repealed and that no background check should be required of anyone who holds a state license to carry that is exempt from a NICS check. There should be no fee or "stamp" requirement. Transfer of NFA weapons between individuals should require no more than using an FFL and the current Form 4473 with a NICS check, or no NICS check if the transferee has a NICS-exempt carry license.

Chas.