Someone threatens to "punch you in the fu¢kin face"

[ceyko]

I don't believe this to be entirely, 100% true in every case. I have read that given the correct circumstances, there is a loophole. Though, you know far more about gun laws than I do.

My BIL has some felonies, and I believe he said he can do muzzle loaders and something else. Either way, not great home defense weapons. Think it's more for hunting though.

[bcoop]

As for shooting sprees -- I'll add this. We live in a "me too", or copycat society if you will. Some some dumbass, or dumbass kid, given the situation, sees a random shooting spree, and thinks, "Ooooh, I can do it better." That's a whole other problem in and of itself. Because it's not only related to tragic situations like shooting sprees.

[CJ]

I don't believe this to be entirely, 100% true in every case. I have read that given the correct circumstances, there is a loophole. Though, you know far more about gun laws than I do.

You're right that to very slim degree there is a loophole, but for all intents and purposes it's almost not even worth mentioning. It works through what the offense was (it can't be a violent crime) and appealing through the state level and eventually the ATF.

[CJ]

My BIL has some felonies, and I believe he said he can do muzzle loaders and something else. Either way, not great home defense weapons. Think it's more for hunting though.

Muzzle loaders are legal for felons if they are manufacturer before 1899 or a reproduction of said weapon. That's why I'm always wary of muzzle loader dudes at the range.

[bcoop]

My BIL has some felonies, and I believe he said he can do muzzle loaders and something else. Either way, not great home defense weapons. Think it's more for hunting though.

That is a loophole, but not the one I'm thinking of. IIRC, if it's a nonviolent crime, and no gun involved, after a certain amount of time has passed, you can petition and have it reviewed. You can't get a CHL though, and as far as actual possession of the weapon, it has to be on your personal, private property. The way the law is written, it's kind of open for interpretation with each officer, if a felon were to say, get stopped on the way to the gun range. I've discussed this with 03TruBlu before.

[ceyko]

Muzzle loaders are legal for felons if they are manufacturer before 1899 or a reproduction of said weapon. That's why I'm always wary of muzzle loader dudes at the range.

Good point. I was always wary of them cause all that powder burning off irritates my sinuses (No cheese for that whine please), never really connected the dots on that one though. Just assumed they were like my Dad, muzzle loading just to be able to sit in the woods longer and "hunt" deer.

[Rick Modena]

I've discussed this with 03TruBlu before.

Fuck that guy!

Just seeing if is still around since he has not posted in a week or so...

[CJ]

Fuck that guy!

Just seeing if is still around since he has not posted in a week or so...

Rick hates that dude.

[Rick Modena]

Rick hates that dude.

lmao!

[Silverback]

Fuck that guy!

Just seeing if is still around since he has not posted in a week or so...

I was waiting for that post... you bad Henry, you bad.

[EW]

Well, that is true. My question to you is though, is what with all of the public shooting sprees in the last 30 years, don't you see a reason to revise that right to insure weapons are making it into the hands of responsible citizens of sound mind? That right was written 224 years ago when society was much different and they weren't worried about a civil society going on public shooting sprees on unarmed public. I'm all for people owning firearms who are responsible and of sound mind but people with proven backgrounds with felonies and unstable emotional states should not be allowed to own a firearm for any reason.

You have the right to defend yourself. You should use it and don't worry about blocking people of that right. Removing the right of self protection does not make you or anyone else safer. If it did, places like NY, NJ, D.C., and school zones would be safe havens. Instead, what are they? Criminal safe zones. Instead, let's focus on putting violent criminals and crazy people in jail longer. You can not prevent crazy people or criminals, period. You can arm yourself and get some training.

[Rick Modena]

I was waiting for that post... you bad Henry, you bad.

Funny thing though, when I was young I wanted to be a police officer, go figure...

[Steve]

People with felonies aren't allowed to own firearms as it is.

It is my understanding that Texas felons can own and possess firearms on their own property 10 years after being released from a correctional facility.

I see your point, but there were lunatics all over the place when this country was settled, too. It's not like they didn't have crazy people to contend with back then, like they just started popping up in recent years. Yes, they are more prevalent now, but our population as a whole has multiplied, so of course the lunatics have too.

I firmly believe that much like the drug war, gun regulation is a failure. You think gangbangers care about gun regulation? Nope. They shouldn't have them anyways, but there will always be a black market. You think OG Eastside is going to make Lil Pookie take an evaluation before he sells him a .38 with the numbers ground off? Notgonnahappen.

Gun regulation is one of those hot topics that gives the pussified Americans a warm fuzzy feeling, like the DEA, Homeland Security, etc. It's all a bunch of fear based horseshit. All gun regulation does is cost the responsible, LEGAL gun owners more money, time, and hassle. Keep in mind that this is a Constitutional right.... Criminals don't give a fuck. Wackos don't give a fuck.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Homeland Security has made this country more safe? What about the DEA?

I definetly see your point, most current gun laws only punish law abiding citizens. I agree with that.

As for your Homeland Security/DEA question, I cannot and won't answer that.

[Steve]

You have the right to defend yourself. You should use it and don't worry about blocking people of that right. Removing the right of self protection does not make you or anyone else safer. If it did, places like NY, NJ, D.C., and school zones would be safe havens. Instead, what are they? Criminal safe zones. Instead, let's focus on putting violent criminals and crazy people in jail longer. You can not prevent crazy people or criminals, period. You can arm yourself and get some training.

At this point, that seems to be the logical approach. Fight crime, shoot back.

[bcoop]

It is my understanding that Texas felons can own and possess firearms on their own property 10 years after being released from a correctional facility.

It's not exactly that simple. As CJ and I mentioned, the felony has to be a nonviolent crime. A murderer, for instance, still can't own a weapon. But even then, you still have to petition state govt, federal govt, etc. It's not just a simple, "Oh, it's been ten years, here's your pistol."

As for your Homeland Security/DEA question, I cannot and won't answer that.

You don't need to, but surely you can see the connection I'm making. I'll find some links and post them, that show how many security breaches there have been since the advent of DHS and TSA. We are no more safe today, than we were pre 9-11. But the xray machines, the pat downs, and the half retarded TSA employees everywhere gives a false sense of security that people are safe at the airport, and it's just not true. Just like with DHS/TSA, there is absolutely, positively, ZERO less drug traffic due to their efforts. One could legitimately argue that there is even more.