Well I guess as it currently stands I won't sale firearms so my expected profit on any gun is $0. As far as who pays the $25 then as with any business deal - it is negotiated - but yes it would eat into your profit most likely.

As far as whether it would be effective or not I really don't know. America has a pretty poor track record of enforcing gun laws (just look at that Philadelphia guy who kept getting arrested for gun violations and having them dismissed). Until we start enforcing what we have I don't see why America should keep pushing for new laws.

That's my bigger problem with the discourse now. People want new laws but then don't want to enforce the laws we have because they say they are discriminatory towards minorities, etc.

Maybe he should work on passing legislation to make murder illegal. A law would definitely stop it...

I think everyone agrees background checks are a good idea, UNTIL you think about how it could actually be enforced as a law. It would require a registry and no one should ever think a registry is a good idea. Canada tried it and it didn't work and it's a big step toward confiscation.

Dover97 said:

---

If your supplying a deadly weapon to someone, wether required or not, you should be sure who you are supplying it too.

---

What about selling gas to someone? After all, a Molotov cocktail is a very deadly weapon as well. How about kitchen knives? Cars? I could list hundreds of deadly weapons that are sold daily without anyone screaming about them..... yet.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

How are background checks enforced at academy? I've been told there is no way for the gov to get the records of who bought what as its not really linked or something. Is it only enforced by the fear that a gun shop would lose a license or something? Who checks books? How does it work?

---

They are enforced at Academy or Texian or similar because if either wants to,sell firearms, they must go through the NCIS system. And rhere is a record, no mater how much the feds claim there isnt - there is a database. They know what you boutght, where you bought it and when you bought it.

A mandatory BGC on a private sale is,completely different. It is a secondary tax on the property, it is akin to a poll tax on voting. And since the feda wont open the NCIS database to the public, the only way to legally make a sale in their world would be to go through an FFL or LEO agency - and pay. And create a registry of firearms. And a list of all firearm owners.

Nope. F that, multiple times over.

While we're at it...lets implement universal background checks on person to person car sales, chainsaws, hammers, machete's, and pipe. All these things can easily become weapons and keeping them out of the hands of democrat voters is a necessary and prudent requirement. Meanwhile...the rest of us can continue down this path of government dependence and our pantie-waist culture......

Dover97 said:

---

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.

---

Would you support a requirement that homeowners have a stack of forms in their home so that a thief is required, by law, to fill out his or her information in order for the homeowner to do a background check?

Texas 1836 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Texas 1836 said:

---

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 ...

---

He's not. What he said is absolute truth.

---

Oh, absolute truth. Well, it's settled then.

For now, it is a conservative state. You take away the 4 metro areas and North Mexico and it definitely is.

Just because all you see on tv are a bunch of liberal jackasses, doesn't make it so.

If TV coverage translated to actual numbers, Trump would have lost by 30 pts.

Now, if the Rio Grande stays wadeable and both coasts keep moving here, we are definitely headed down the toilet.

---

If we were what we like to act like we are, Texas would have Constitutional carry, like many states that walk that walk better than we do. Yeah, we fly Come And Take It Flags, talk a big game, etc but we are middle of the road.

Someone else nailed it.... we are a evangelical family values type conservative State. But yet we don't have Constitutional carry, had to fight tooth and nail for open carry, and have all kinds of other big government type BS.

What I guess I'd rather see is more libertarian tinged Conservatism.

If there was a simple mechanism whereby a private individual could call an 800 number, enter the name and DL of a potential buyer, and get the results of a background check quickly, I would not mind, as it provides some peace of mind that I am no selling to a felon or someone otherwise prohibited from buying the firearm.

The problem is that the only way to reliably enforce this requirement is with a firearm registry, and there is simply no way I would comply with that.

The other problem with current registration is legislative add-ons like Washington State and those pushed by Chuckie Shumer that regulate temporary transfers. Those restrictions are outrageous, are again impossible to reliably prosecute without a registry.

So the best answer, IMO, is the status quo.

Dover97 said:

---

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.

---

My dad gave me several of his guns last spring. I don't want to commit a felony in situations like that. For those reasons and others, I am against such ineffective additional regulation.

I still can't get why people don't understand the obvious: if you're planning on committing murder, stealing something like guns isn't something you're going to think twice about. And it isn't that difficult. Home burglaries are common and the cops do little to nothing about them. Heck, if you want a handgun, break into a truck at a school. After 3 or 4 trucks, you'll find at least 2 or 3 guns. Do it in Dallas and your chances of getting caught are near zero. With as many ARs out there, I would steal what I needed if I was going to do harm.

The Sandy Hook guy stole his mom's AR. Right after he murdered her. What law are you going to pass to prevent that?

This goes back to the primary argument that criminals don't give a crap about what laws you want to pass. Passing a new gun law is just grandstanding. It has no impact on people with no regard for the law.

How would any new law have prevented any recent killing spree? Gun control is so far from being the answer to the problem.

Dan Patrick and his merry band of Texas RINOs are more concerned with making sure Texas school textbooks have their slant, getting involved in our lives and bedrooms in many ways, and instituting big government policies with a right slant than they are our freedoms and leaving us the hell alone.

aggiedent said:

---

The manager of the Willowbrook Academy told me just last Thursday, than they have never had an audit where anyone has ever looked at those forms. Ever.

His words.

---

He lied or doesn't know what he's talking about. That's one of the two biggest points of an audit. The other is a gun inventory

I have a feeling the manager of the Willowbrook Academy is an idiot.

Alta said:

---

Laws don't prevent people from committing crimes but allows for consequences when a crime is committed and to hopefully deter some crimes from being committed. Murder is illegal but people still do it. I bet we would have more murders if it wasn't against the law though.

I never understand this line of reasoning from our side.

---

Deterrence does work in many cases, but not usually with gun laws. The reason? Because, as I stated, the criminal is going to use the gun in ANOTHER, more serious, crime so why would he be worried about breaking gun laws. If you're hell bent on killing someone, or you are so messed up that anything might set you off, what the hell do you care what it takes to get a weapon? What I don't understand is why you can't see this simple line of reasoning.

If murder wasn't illegal, perhaps we'd have more murders, but we'd also have more of one other thing: self defense killings. So that is, at best, a red herring.

The left, and other pro-gun control individuals, (usually) want strict gun laws but not strict other criminal laws in general. For example, they don't want strict drug laws, and they don't want these laws enforced where they exist. They want cops to stop policing, and oh, by the way, when cops do shoot someone, they don't blame the gun, they blame the cop because the cop is higher on the food chain of hate than the gun is (at least at that moment). Hell, the Obama so-called justice dept. didn't even want to prosecute those that tried to illegally purchase guns. Why? I don't know for sure, but my guess is that many of them were minority.

Add to all this the fact that gun control flat out DOES NOT WORK. We had Columbine during the so-called Assault Weapons ban, committed by 2 under age individuals who also had homemade explosives that, had they gone off, would have doubled or tripled the number killed. I don't even know how many state and federal laws those 2 broke before they stepped foot on campus that morning. Deterrence you say? Please.

I'm sorry, but any so-called conservative that goes along in ANY way with any gun restriction -- regardless of whether you call it common sense or not -- is pandering to the left and the gun control crowd. You are making it easier to them, sooner or later, to destroy the second amendment. What we need is LESS restrictions on guns, not more. We need more education. We need every kid in America trained on guns just like shop class when I was in junior high:

6th grade: gun education; blue guns, how to pick up and hold weapon, simulated aiming
7th grade: non firing model: working the action, aiming and simulated firing
8th grade: single shot range firing; 100% safety REQUIRED

We tell all US gun makers that they need to provide, free of charge, single shot .22 (or other rimfire) rifles to schools as well as non firing models for education purposes. It is amazing that in every other area of our life, people will say that education is the key to overcoming fear, but not with guns; fear is paramount. The left and the anti-gun crowd want everyone to remain fearful so they can reach their ultimate goal -- the elimination of civilian gun ownership.

And any so-called conservative that goes along with this in any way is pissing on the second amendment whether you mean to or not. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely true.

JonSnow said:

---

. If nothing else it would help LGSs.

---

Ok, let me say something here as this directly addresses me on both sides. It's still an absolutely stupid idea that won't help. I say this as someone that would absolutely reason major benefits from this passing. I do at least three transfers a day, sometimes more. If we had to have every gun purchase go through an ffl, I'd be making an absolute killing. So, please, when I say this, be very aware that this would be an absolute boon to my business. In addition, the used gun market would change drastically and I would have more people selling used guns to me at the prices that I buy at. Absolute win/win for me as a small business in the short term.

So, all that being said, passing this is one of the most asinine and stupid things that we, as Texans, could do to curb gun deaths. This only works if there is a gun registry. That is the absolute only way that it works. Then the government will know exactly how many you have and what they are. When things get to confiscation, and don't kid yourself, that is exactly what the left wants and will not stop until it happens, then we have allowed them to have a roadmap that will make it easier.

Look, I get it, people want to do things to help reduce violent crime. I do too. However, misguided attempts to do so are dangerous for a multitude of reasons. You have to look at the bigger picture here:. Gun owners are a targeted group by the left. Look at every facet of Democrat style liberalism and realize that they are in this for the long game. They look at every sliver as a major victory and a stepping stone for the next battle. As such, if we value all of our freedoms, then we have to take a line in the Sand approach. Not only that, we have to push back.

The problem here isn't the availability of gonna, but rather the way our society has evolved to remove male guidance from children and a graying of what is right and wrong compounded by the lack of accountability when something does go wrong.

You want to fix gun violence? Find a way to fix our family groups. Get certain groups to have a vested interest in their children. You do that, and we can make it better, though we s will never be able to completely eliminate it.