HB 357 (I like that bill number) would allow permitless carry of a legally owned handgun in Texas.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB00357I.htm
That's a very charitable thought. I hope you're right. However, given her work in Florida, we should probably ask some Florida gun owners what they think. I believe they're mostly on record with less than kind thoughts about her style of "supporting" the Second Amendment.Perhaps Hammer is simply choosing which battles to pursue.
I could live with that. I'm not sure which two things they could eliminate that are regulations instead of law. I know one of them would be the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation or any other purpose. I'm not sure what I'd choose for the second thing to discard.Trump has said eliminate 2 to get 1
I could live with that. I'm not sure which two things they could eliminate that are regulations instead of law. I know one of them would be the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation or any other purpose. I'm not sure what I'd choose for the second thing to discard.
I like the way you're thinking. The community should do more brainstorming on how (only if we're forced into it, of course) to give anti-gunners something they want while making part of the deal getting a whole hell of a lot more in return.
Example? If the leftists want universal background checks, I could support that if:
See? "Not one inch" is a useful mindset but it's not reality. When the political rubber meets the road, compromises can be conceived that are a net positive for the cause of freedom.
- I get to define "background check" (which will include ways for person-to-person sales to continue, unrecorded),
- "Sporting purposes" goes away,
- The Hughes Amendment goes away,
- We get a new 1968 amnesty, and
- We get a technical corrections bill to partially fix the NFA by, at minimum, removing SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors from control.
Whether such compromises could ever become reality is an open question but I can dream, can't I?
I agree and that's what I'm saying - Not one more (net) inch.They plan on taking ground inch by inch.
...
Not one inch.
I could live with that. I'm not sure which two things they could eliminate that are regulations instead of law. I know one of them would be the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation or any other purpose. I'm not sure what I'd choose for the second thing to discard.
I like the way you're thinking. The community should do more brainstorming on how (only if we're forced into it, of course) to give anti-gunners something they want while making part of the deal getting a whole hell of a lot more in return.
Example? If the leftists want universal background checks, I could support that if:
See? "Not one inch" is a useful mindset but it's not reality. When the political rubber meets the road, compromises can be conceived that are a net positive for the cause of freedom.
- I get to define "background check" (which will include ways for person-to-person sales to continue, unrecorded),
- "Sporting purposes" goes away,
- The Hughes Amendment goes away,
- We get a new 1968 amnesty, and
- We get a technical corrections bill to partially fix the NFA by, at minimum, removing SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors from control.
Whether such compromises could ever become reality is an open question but I can dream, can't I?
I understand Sir.I agree and that's what I'm saying - Not one more (net) inch.
I really agree with that, going back to the NFA which needs to be repealed but, at minimum, has numerous technical errors that need correcting. But I should stop before I write a book about that and bore everybody to death. God knows I've ridiculously hijacked this thread and I'm supposed to know better.American gun owners are in the red over the last 70 years.
That's a very charitable thought. I hope you're right. However, given her work in Florida, we should probably ask some Florida gun owners what they think. I believe they're mostly on record with less than kind thoughts about her style of "supporting" the Second Amendment.
I understand Sir.
Two steps forward one step back. That still leaves us 1 step up..... but if we want to look at the bottom line American gun owners are in the red over the last 70 years. We need 3 steps forward, and then 3 more after that just to catch up. Americans should not negotiate with gun grabbers anymore. Dancing the two step with those who seek to take our freedoms has not served us well IMO.
I think the guy that made most of the bump stocks is quitting the business. I think they are pretty useless and foolish and have never purchased one. There was a GAO report in 2011 that we used 250,000 rounds per enemy killed in the War on Terror. The bump-stock is a pray and spray proposition to me. I think there are bigger fish to fry such as getting rid of the $200 tax stamp to own SBRs and Silencers and instead of having to send a form to the ATF for silencers just have them done on a 4473. Then a nationwide law for concealed carry that permits nationwide recognition of CHL permits. Taking down the NFA in full.
I really agree with that, going back to the NFA which needs to be repealed but, at minimum, has numerous technical errors that need correcting. But I should stop before I write a book about that and bore everybody to death. God knows I've ridiculously hijacked this thread and I'm supposed to know better.
There was a GAO report in 2011 that we used 250,000 rounds per enemy killed in the War on Terror.
/Thread Drift ON/ source? I find it hard to believe even GAO could figure that out.
Ammunition expenditure quantity is not tracked at the individual level by any service.
Second, a basic combat load of 5.56 is 210 rounds, and 1,000 for a SAW at 2 per company. That GAO number implies essentially a BNs worth of basic load was fully expended per enemy casualty.
/Thread Drift OFF/
I bet they are including all the ammo used to train with test with ect ect. Not just the amount fired at bad guys.
So for example law enforcement purchased 4 million rounds and out of that 16 people got nuked.
...
The REAL problem is that our legislators act on people's OPINIONS, no matter how misinformed or erroneous they may be.
The problem I am having with my own state legicritter is he is giving more weight to the opinions of police and sheriffs than he is to the citizens who elected him. He claims they are opposed to Constitutional Carry because "it will make their job harder." Of course he has no objective evidence or data to support this, so I am making an effort to locate published interviews with LEO in states which have Constitutional Carry which clearly refute this.
Any other ideas on good solid evidence to help get this passed through this session?
As an ex-military logistics manager in the Afghanistan theater, we track all the ammunition that comes in the theater and who has it and what was utilized. Inventories are also conducted. If you are issued a combat load it has to be accounted for by individual issue. We know pretty close what enemy casualties are. That figure is an average per enemy killed not hard to figure out at all. I wouldn't sell the GAO as doing sloppy work. We also had to do a daily report on all classes of supply that went through the chain to the Theater Command and then to Central Command, DoD and the White House. If you don't believe we tracked everything you would be wrong. I could tell you where the next toilet paper shipment was located at. In that theater, you couldn't just load up run down to the local stores and buy stuff. Most of the stuff had to go by air or vehicle convoy./Thread Drift ON/ source? I find it hard to believe even GAO could figure that out.
Ammunition expenditure quantity is not tracked at the individual level by any service.
Second, a basic combat load of 5.56 is 210 rounds, and 1,000 for a SAW at 2 per company. That GAO number implies essentially a BNs worth of basic load was fully expended per enemy casualty.
/Thread Drift OFF/