Quote:

---

On Friday, Patrick said it's "common sense" to tighten background-check laws because in many instances, stranger-to-stranger sales now are exempt from the requirement that buyers be vetted through a federal database of people not eligible to purchase firearms.

"When I talk to gun owners, NRA members and voters, people don't understand why we allow strangers to sell guns to total strangers when they have no idea if the person they're selling the gun to could be a felon, could be someone who's getting a gun to go commit a crime or could be a potential mass shooter or someone who has serious mental issues."

"Look, I'm a solid NRA guy," he said, "but not expanding the background check to eliminate the stranger to stranger sale makes no sense to me and ... most folks."

The NRA responded soon after, calling Patrick's proposals "political gambits" that would "resurrect the same broken, Bloomberg-funded failures that were attempted under the Obama administration."

---

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/09/06/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-says-he-will-defy-nra-take-lead-on-gun-background-checks/

I'm surprised by this. I've stuck by Dan for years despite the vitriol he usually gets, but this is a head scratcher.

Lt. Dan is a tool.

And right now, Danny, street thugs, criminals, etc., are grinning from ear to ear.

I have nothing good to say about the man so I'll just hold my tongue.

I guess I may have to break my father's rule.
"If you can't say something nice, say it about a Democrat"

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Look, I'm a solid NRA guy," he said.

---

---

Quote:

---

When I talk to gun owners, NRA members and voters,

---

That liar hasn't talked to anyone.

proc said:

---

Lt. Dan is a tool.

---

His name was Dannie Goeb before he changed his name legally.
Before becoming a politician, he filed personal bankruptcy.
But he must be a smart guy, as he will someday retire wealthy and with a nice state pension.
Professional Politician.

Dan patrick sucks.

I saw the interview this morning and let his office along with my state rep know this is unacceptable.

He blew property tax reform and has turned on Texas gun owners. He's playing the changing demographics game to try and keep his job.

Be interesting to see the next primary. For a bit i thought Wendy Davis was transitioning or something.

Texas Republicans.....

I swear, Texas isn't NEAR the Come and Take It bastion of conservatism we like to pretend it is.

And..... **** Dan Patrick.

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Texas Republicans.....

I swear, Texas isn't NEAR the Come and Take It bastion of conservatism we like to pretend it is.

And..... **** Dan Patrick.

---

Don't confuse citizens with politicians ...

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Texas Republicans.....

I swear, Texas isn't NEAR the Come and Take It bastion of conservatism we like to pretend it is.

And..... **** Dan Patrick.

---

Sure it is. The Come and Take It also references Texas having the most liberal eminent domain laws in the country. Continually supported by theses professional politicians we support...

How will they enforce this without registering guns

Yep. I've got my eye on heading to Wyoming when I retire. I don't care to pay Texas property taxes when retired.

Plus Wyoming >>> Texas when it comes to gun freedoms.

They probably wouldn't enforce it (they don't really enforce current gun laws) but if this did become the law I wouldn't want to be the person who sold a gun to somebody who wouldn't pass a background check (but I wouldn't want to be that person now either which is why I would never sale a firearm),

Dan Patrick probably hasn't bought a firearm in his entire life and doesn't know that, when firearms are purchased through a FFL shop, there currently are "background" checks for all felony convictions, mental heath warrants or court ordered mental health violation and domestic violence arrests and convictions. An in depth background review or check would take several days if not weeks and would probably involve a waiting period before your allowed to take possession of your firearm.

I have no doubt what they want is eliminating private individual sales of firearms, extensive anal scope background checks with a ? waiting time and a national firearm registry. This will all be paid for by a 10-20% increase in the cost of firearms, ammunition and FFL fees.

yikes he took the bait. Adios.

I'm strongly on the side of the 2nd Amendment but I don't see the problem with requiring back ground checks. If your supplying a deadly weapon to someone, wether required or not, you should be sure who you are supplying it too. I don't think guns are the issue with what is going on right now (more of a media and "copy cat" issue) but you should still have a reasonable responsibility to what you do.

Another bitc! Professional politician , between all the liberals who have turned their state into a dumpster fire and have now set their sights on texas and the demographic changes looks like we are in for some of that LBJ bullshi! Part 2.

If all my guns hadn't been lost in a tragic boating accident, I could sell them to my LEO son, my hunting/work partners of 25 years, or neighbor and how would anybody know?

B-1 83 said:

---

If all my guns hadn't been lost in a tragic boating accident, I could sell them to my LEO son, my hunting/work partners of 25 years, or neighbor and how would anybody know?

---

Nobody would know, UNLESS that full registration of every personally owned firearm has occurred...
Without that, only the law-abiding citizens willing to comply with "UBC" will trot down to an FFL, while many other good citizens will ignore it, and the bad actors will say " what the hell is a universal background check"?

jayelbee said:

---

I know this board is mostly (or at least a vocal minority) in the not another inch crowd, but the background check requirement is a reasonable and defensible position when it comes to permanent transfers.

---

Absolutely.

Minus the fact that it isn't really all that enforceable without full and total registration of all firearms to their current owners when the law starts.

And the fact that registries have zero impact on crime. Canada spent MILLIONS on a national gun registry. It solved no crimes, it didn't reduce violence, but it did employ some government workers and cost millions...until they repealed it because it cost millions and did nothing.

So setting aside whatever anyones personal beliefs regarding natural rights to self defense or the nature of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution and whether new laws violate either, you should be opposed to mandatory background checks/registration because the costs are enormous and the benefits/actual impacts are nil.

Yet another tax payer money sucking, good for nothing "fix".

You're 100% right in everything you posted.

Quote:

---

Minus the fact that it isn't really all that enforceable without full and total registration of all firearms to their current owners when the law starts.

---

And for anyone above on the thread who claims to be pro-2nd amendment, let me be perfectly clear. You're not. Or you haven't thought this through. This quote is the only mother-****ing fact that matters. Because even if it was effective (it isn't, like Bender pointed out), it's not worth giving up this right or establishing this registry. If it's not enforceable without further eroding our rights, then it isn't defensible.

You're making this point with emotions, not with logic and reasoning. In short, you're acting just like the other side wants you to.

Don't know if I should start a new thread on this topic, but here is how it starts:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/09/06/exclusive-feds-demand-apple-and-google-hand-over-names-of-10000-users-of-a-gun-scope-app/#3dc5f57a2423

jayelbee said:

---

I didn't say I was personally for it or against it. I just said that a reasonable person could agree with it, and it's certainly a defensible position for someone to have. Off the books, face to face, buys are probably one of my favorite ways to pick up new toys and it isn't only because a used gun costs less than a new one. I expect that it's the same for all of the goobers around here who make 3 exclamations a week about how all of their guns fell into a lake.

---

And my response would have been the same even if you posted you were 100% personally opposed to the idea.

When people bring up universal background checks as some sort of actual fix for gun violence, it's worth pointing out that the idea has been tried, and failed. You mention UBCs as something a reasonable person could support. My counter argument is that a reasonable person shouldn't agree to spend millions on ideas that are proven failures.

Alta said:

---

Isn't he just saying that the same check that is performed at a FFL should be required for private sales too?

---

What's being said is "comprehensive" background checks and no one has come forward to define what that actually means. I sure in the hell don't know. When I was in the military I had a TS nuclear surety clearance. That took nine months to complete..When I went to work for Sheriffs Department my background check took two months. I guess we will have to wait and see.
If your required to go through an FFL for a private sale who pays that 25$ (or more) fee? Forgive me for being a capitalist but that surely cuts into any profit you may be expecting. Like a good citizen I'll follow whatever regulation is passed. Meth heads and career criminals don't care about federal firearm laws so nothing will change except for law abiding people like yourself and myself who will have to jump through another hoop and give up a little more just to enjoy our inherent right to possess a firearm.

Alte Schule said:

---

Meth heads and career criminals don't care about federal firearm laws so nothing will change except for law abiding people like yourself and myself who will have to jump through another hoop and give up a little more just to enjoy our inherent right to possess a firearm.

---

As it always was, and as it always will be.