TexasCHLforum.com

Stupid wrote:How about making this a lot simpler: people who aren't eligible to purchase firearms should remain locked up in prison.
If we don't trust them with firearm, why should we trust them with other hundred thousands of things that they can use to murder us?

Meaning we lock all felons up indefinitely? Outside of the Wall-street guys who aren't currently in prison, I definitely don't agree. Why not?

1) We already lock more people up per population than any other civilized country. I'm not sure that it's working beyond feeding companies that live off the prison system and creating media bullets for politicians that are "tough on crime". Sure doesn't seem to be deterring anyone in Chicago.

2) I don't want to pay for it personally. Or, in reality, I don't want my kids to pay for it. Figure out a way for it to finance itself and I'll object less. We're already spending a bunch of money that we don't have doing things enforcing laws that aren't working.

3) The reality of our legal system affords people with wealth much better outcomes than those without. I don't think that's the way our founding fathers intended it to work. Were you prepared to mount a reasonably financed legal defense when you were 20 years old? I know I wasn't. That's easily taken advantage of and manipulated.

4) Statistically are non-violent felons really that likely to murder us? (You're talking about all felons)

5) I think this idea is a nod to the theory that our prison system doesn't rehabilitate. Agree with you there, if that's part of what you're saying.

VMI77 wrote: So you want them to have your name and address?

I don't care. I'm not expecting anonymity as a buyer or seller if we are going to have a means to red-light / green-light private sales. I'm as anonymous as my license plate. I'll trade someone knowing my name/address in order to make sure I'm not buying a stolen gun and as a seller to know that I'm not selling to someone who is on the naughty list.

Consider today - if I roll up in the Walmart parking lot and do a transaction, all you need to do is get my license plate and look that up via a VTR-275 form. If you don't want to wait, you can use one of the private DBs (like Publicdata.com).

VMI77 wrote: In some states, like Oklahoma, your DL number is your SSN (used to be you could refuse use of your SSN if you knew that option existed, but I don't know if that's true in other states that use your SSN). I'm reminded of a line in Ronin where some illegal guns were about to be purchased and the buyer tells the seller...just because we're buying guns doesn't mean we don't have any.

Luckily TX doesn't do that. OK is behind the times. Not that long ago FAA pilot license numbers were SS# and were public-ally accessible, so you could look up Name, address, DOB, SS all in one place. Nice, huh?

VMI77 wrote: Where is the DL public info database....I'd like to look some up?

License plate lookup is VTR-275. I didn't see a TXDOT form for DL number lookup, but using a private DB (publicdata.com) - it's relatively easy to get starting with some basic info like a license plate. Largely publicdata gets their info via the same means that make forms available to the public. The form way just takes longer.

bnc wrote: What piece of information do you guys think the citizen accessed background check system should be based off of? I'd rather not give random person my SSN in order to buy a gun privately, but to be a national system I don't know if they could use something issued by the state like a DL. There are other identifiers, like full name and DOB, place of birth, etc, but all of these are PI that can easily be abused in the wrong hands.

Lots of sellers ask for CHL. I agree though, SS# is probably too much. How about DL? That's pretty much public info these days..

parabelum wrote: Maybe under different administration I'd feel more at ease, but this one, no sir.

I completely understand unease and distrust. I'm there with you. I'm quite willing to say "do nothing" though, although I understand why many people are.

canvasbck wrote: If your looking for compromise, here is my idea of compromise, and one that may make a difference in gun crimes:
1. Develop an online background check system accessible by citizens, straight up yes or no. No details

100% agree with you - I believe I've proposed the same sort of solution. It's a good idea. Red light / Green light. That's all you get. I'd add the ability to "clear" firearm serial numbers. Make it a requirement for a private sale. If you sell to a "red" guy, you're liable criminally. If you sell to a "green" guy - you indemnified civil/criminal.

canvasbck wrote: 2. Require the background check be done for all sales at gunshows and internet gun sales, face to face individual sales not subject to background checks.
(anti's should love 1 and 2)

Politically, I'd position this differently. I'd agree to background checks for "all transactions" and ask for something in return. Essentially, if we require private parties to clear the person they're selling to and require all other ypes of transactions to be FFL, that covers all the cases. We can call it "universal background" or whatever. It really changes very little, other than closing the private party loophole - in return you protect buyers and sellers. Even if I got nothing in return, I'd want to be able to validate who I'm selling to.

canvasbck wrote: 3. Repeal the NFA (no need to restrict access to class III weapons for citizens who have been background checked)

Honestly, I don't care... Probably politically untenable currently, but I'd take it if I could get it. I'd like a silencer for the backyard, without having to spend $900 on a 10/22 after your done with all the NFA drama. Class-3 stuff is cool - but again, it's touchy.

canvasbck wrote: 4. Increase mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms

Don't agree with mandatory minimums - they get used for purposes and cases that they don't fit and take away judges ability to use their brains. I also don't think they dissuade criminals. If jail terms reduced crimes, we'd have cranked 'em up already.

canvasbck wrote: 5. National shall issue concealed carry

100% onboard...

I share your concern. However, is it enough of a concern to justify total inaction? IE - are we so scared of what "might" happen that we don't implement what might be considered an obvious improvement?


The link you cited seems to indicate that any case where a financial trustee is in place will trigger a restriction. Again, valid concern, but I'm not 100% that's the implementation. Does that mean that someone has been adjudicated as "unfit"? I certainly hope not.

parabelum wrote:Sadly, I think that this EO will affect our Vet's first and foremost through the V.A.
Then, think about what qualifies as "mental disorder". Stalin and his ilk did similar thing, by twisting words/redefining the definitions, little by little, until only those that Government deemed "fit", according to their revised definitions of course, were able to posses a firearms. Then the party begins.

I have great respect for our Vet's, but I don't think that being a Vet entitles you to a complete lifetime pass in terms of the mental facilities required for firearm ownership. We all age. It may disadvantage Vets as their healthcare is government sponsored because that's a direct link to the information and the private sector isn't as "available".

As near as I can tell the EO will start applying known social security statuses of people that have been somehow judged or adjudicated to be incapable of running their own affairs and essentially block subsequent firearm purchase attempts. Would you argue that these people should own firearms? IMHO, it's reasonable to make sure that there is a fair process around doing that adjudication and appealing any government action. I can easily argue that ignoring such a status is ridiculous... And expecting people who are mentally incapable to volunteer that on a form is just as ludicrous..

If you can show me where it redefines "mental disorder" or applies common mental disorders such as situational-depression as a trigger for a background check fail, please show me.... That's be much more concerning to me. I do know how badly the government can mess up medical fitness - I'm a pilot, there's a whole movement to remove the massive burden of "prove that you're physically capable" that the government applies to those of us who do it as a hobby.

VM, I largely get the same response from some people when I mention "compromise". Compromise isn't promoting that we give something up and get nothing, it's promoting that we both give something up and both gain something. No one that I know of promoting reasonable discussion or compromise is indicating that we should just make concessions.

Taking the view that compromise is impossible because they won't budge is inherently doing what we're accusing "them" of. "Slippery slope" is a great example of our side not budging on anything, yet we can easily identify that improvements need to be made - like better enforcement and background checks that actually work.

I grow tired of continued politicization of these issues. We won't discuss the facts, we just vilify the source.

I don't think we have the whole cake, otherwise I'd be fine with a stonewall. I think we've got part of the cake. I believe that there are ways to improve public safety and promote 2nd amendment rights.

I think he's referring to todays gains on firearm stocks.. :-)

cyphertext, I'm basically with you - I don't see anything outlandish in the released text that I've read. From what I can gather and running contrary to social media and some visceral reactions from people that don't seem to have a factual basis:
1) It's not going to take away your guns if you're on social security disability.
2) It's not going to do away with the NFA gun trust. It may do away with the loophole that excludes people in the trust from fingerprints and it may make necessary a background check for anyone named in the trust. I'll admit that the details are a bit sketchy here, so this is subject to correction. I'm not crazy about this part if it defers authority to local law enforcement and they're allowed to have their own political agenda.
3) It addresses resource issues with the current system - which should help reduce applicants that fall through the 3-day window.
4) It may take away your ability to buy guns if you've been adjudicated to not be mentally competent enough to handle your own financial affairs.


Personally, I think that requiring background checks for FFLs and not requiring anything for private sales is simply a waste of resources. Rather than more legislation, I'd prefer to see responsibility for sale passed on to sellers (private party) - but to make that happen we need a red light / green light system when we go to sell a firearm.

Calling Obama a Muslim is either an indication of an inability to check basic facts or it's being used as a derogatory term. We've got Muslims on this forum who are just as pro 2nd amendment the rest of us.

Sit back and enjoy today's rise in stock price of gun manufacturers and the increase in value of what's in your gun safe... :-)