Seriously, what is going on?

[Playa]

Maybe I am just naive but I do not buy into the assumption or assumptions upon assumptions that every proposed gun control regulation is a tactical step in the overall strategy of reversing the 2nd amendment.

With that said, how do we enable law enforcement to prevent a mass shooting or potential terrorist attack without such a regulatory change as described above? For all the blame put on law enforcement for the many visits to the Florida school shooter's home, there was nothing they could really do. This would have given them that option. Same with the Orlando nightclub terrorist shooting. Might the shootings have still happened? Maybe. But if the police come in take your guns away on the basis of court order which explains why, that is going to be mighty big deterrent. And it puts the authorities in much better position to watch what that individual is doing.

Simple, enforce the laws currently on the books. You said it yourself, LEO made dozens of visits, had those been properly reported he would have been denied purchasing a gun

[ttechdallas]

Simple, enforce the laws currently on the books. You said it yourself, LEO made dozens of visits, had those been properly reported he would have been denied purchasing a gun

I don't think there was any legal basis under existing law to have prevented him from purchasing a gun. He also had multiple guns already, so surely we don't want to suggest that had he not been able to buy an AR-15 then the shooting would not have occurred.

[100%TtId]

If this passes, i suggest we start a list of people to whom this law should be immediately applied, because they are indeed a danger to themselves and others:

Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Fienstein, the entire Clinton family, Rosie O'Donnell, all the Illinois politicians, anyone in Massachussetts named Kennedy, any attendee to any Antifa event, anyone with a DUI conviction, anyone with visible gang tattoos, anyone with Pitbulls, anyone with cars that won't pass inspection, and people who sneeze in public without covering their face.

See how this goes?

[Clay C]

Maybe I am just naive but I do not buy into the assumption or assumptions upon assumptions that every proposed gun control regulation is a tactical step in the overall strategy of reversing the 2nd amendment.

With that said, how do we enable law enforcement to prevent a mass shooting or potential terrorist attack without such a regulatory change as described above? For all the blame put on law enforcement for the many visits to the Florida school shooter's home, there was nothing they could really do. This would have given them that option. Same with the Orlando nightclub terrorist shooting. Might the shootings have still happened? Maybe. But if the police come in take your guns away on the basis of court order which explains why, that is going to be mighty big deterrent. And it puts the authorities in much better position to watch what that individual is doing.

There are people in California living under a very similar law already that can tell you you are naive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Playa]

I don't think there was any legal basis under existing law to have prevented him from purchasing a gun. He also had multiple guns already, so surely we don't want to suggest that had he not been able to buy an AR-15 then the shooting would not have occurred.

That is precisely what I am saying. 911 calls and associated police response date back to 2010 and include domestic dispute which had those been handled appropriately would have excluded him from purchasing any and all guns

If you want effective legislation and change then violent crimes then violent crimes by minors should be required to be logged into NICS

[BrandonA]

I can almost promise this , if passed will heard before the Supreme Court

[Playa]

The 1st place that this law, if passed, will be abused is in divorce court. Jilted wife seeking revenge will assert her gun owning soon to be ex-husband is crazy and owns guns and that will be all it will take.

[grizzman]

The 1st place that this law, if passed, will be abused is in divorce court. Jilted wife seeking revenge will assert her gun owning soon to be ex-husband is crazy and owns guns and that will be all it will take.

Or vice-versa when a husband is trying to strip his ex-wife of the ability to defend herself.

[Playa]

Or vice-versa when a husband is trying to strip his ex-wife of the ability to defend herself.

You get the point...

[100%TtId]

The 1st place that this law, if passed, will be abused is in divorce court. Jilted wife seeking revenge will assert her gun owning soon to be ex-husband is crazy and owns guns and that will be all it will take.

Or vice-versa when a husband is trying to strip his ex-wife of the ability to defend herself.

Yep

[Ironman]

I don't think there was any legal basis under existing law to have prevented him from purchasing a gun. He also had multiple guns already, so surely we don't want to suggest that had he not been able to buy an AR-15 then the shooting would not have occurred.

Of course there was. He made terroristic threats on the book of faces. He even said he was going to shoot up a school. He could have been arrested on several occasions, and been submitted to NICS.

[Smell the Glove]

Good thing I sleep with my AR, selector on semi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13217167&postcount=3

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13220605&postcount=2

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13221908&highlight=guns#post13221908

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13222789&highlight=guns#post13222789

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13230844&highlight=guns#post13230844

You go so hard

[BrandonA]

The 1st place that this law, if passed, will be abused is in divorce court. Jilted wife seeking revenge will assert her gun owning soon to be ex-husband is crazy and owns guns and that will be all it will take.

Yep without doubt. And it will go both ways because both party's will claim the other is bat **** crazy

[systemnt]

There are people in California living under a very similar law already that can tell you you are naive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texas isnt California.

[Playa]

“**** dirty apes!” That’s what Charlton Heston would be saying about the NRA’s support of this legislation.

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.co...67&postcount=3

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13220605&postcount=2

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13221908&highlight=guns#post13221908

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13222789&highlight=guns#post13222789

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13230844&highlight=guns#post13230844

You go so hard

Careful, Smell the Glove, online stalking is probably edging towards “mentally ill” (especially stalking J Sweet) and lead to the confiscation of your weapons.