TexasCHLforum.com

This means same-sex marriage partners in states that recognize that institution would not enjoy the same benefits as traditional spouses, and that “domestic partners” in other states would also not be recognized.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if … the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law…

That said, unless and until such changes in federal law are made, or until the Supreme Court decides on the issue (with a ruling not expected until June), the “gun control” package being pushed by the administration will, if passed, continue to, in Obama’s words about marriage equality, “deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as other couples.”

TexasGal wrote:"Significant Other" There, I fixed it.
And we need to make sure there isn't a limit on how many you can have and they don't have to live with you

JJVP wrote:

This means same-sex marriage partners in states that recognize that institution would not enjoy the same benefits as traditional spouses, and that “domestic partners” in other states would also not be recognized.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if … the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law…

That said, unless and until such changes in federal law are made, or until the Supreme Court decides on the issue (with a ruling not expected until June), the “gun control” package being pushed by the administration will, if passed, continue to, in Obama’s words about marriage equality, “deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as other couples.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate- ... nstituency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The GLBT constituency are left out in the cold.

mamabearCali wrote:

I wish the LGBT would pay attention to this. Progressives don't really give a darn about them. They just want to use them as a bat to beat up the GOP and to call people names. As soon as the rubber meets the road they are set aside like yesterday's laundry.

jimlongley wrote:

TexasGal wrote:"Significant Other" There, I fixed it.
And we need to make sure there isn't a limit on how many you can have and they don't have to live with you

My kind of woman!

Although I have trouble handling just one.

mamabearCali wrote:

JJVP wrote:

This means same-sex marriage partners in states that recognize that institution would not enjoy the same benefits as traditional spouses, and that “domestic partners” in other states would also not be recognized.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if … the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law…

That said, unless and until such changes in federal law are made, or until the Supreme Court decides on the issue (with a ruling not expected until June), the “gun control” package being pushed by the administration will, if passed, continue to, in Obama’s words about marriage equality, “deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as other couples.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate- ... nstituency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The GLBT constituency are left out in the cold.

I wish the LGBT would pay attention to this. Progressives don't really give a darn about them. They just want to use them as a bat to beat up the GOP and to call people names. As soon as the rubber meets the road they are set aside like yesterday's laundry.

anygunanywhere wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

TexasGal wrote:"Significant Other" There, I fixed it.
And we need to make sure there isn't a limit on how many you can have and they don't have to live with you

My kind of woman!

Although I have trouble handling just one.

True dat.

Still gotta love them.

Anygunanywhere

TexasGal wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

TexasGal wrote:"Significant Other" There, I fixed it.
And we need to make sure there isn't a limit on how many you can have and they don't have to live with you

My kind of woman!

Although I have trouble handling just one.

True dat.

Still gotta love them.

Anygunanywhere

I was, of course, referring only to forming a loophole in the law that allowed you to transfer guns to an unlimited number of "significant others". I, too, find keeping up with just one to be entirely enough.