Why Is Texas Sen. John Cornyn Working With Democrats to Outlaw Private Gun Sales?

[Annihilator]

This really is not surprising to me, it doesn’t matter if your a Democrat or Republican, they all want to restrict and deny us our 2nd amendment rights in one way or another.

Why Is Texas Sen. John Cornyn Working With Democrats to Outlaw Private Gun Sales? - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ While John Cornyn’s home state is on the brink of enacting constitutional carry and doing away with government hurdles to keeping and bearing arms in Texas, the Senator is hard at work in Washington, meeting with members of the Senate’s gun control caucus, trying...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[Bassbob]

Because he’s a piece of crap. Texans need to vote his ass out next election.

 

[HayesGreener]

I have read that he supports background checks, no specifics, and wants the feds to enforce existing gun laws. Does anyone have other specifics on his positions?

 

[Bassbob]

I have read that he supports background checks, no specifics, and wants the feds to enforce existing gun laws. Does anyone have other specifics on his positions?

According to the article he is trying to outlaw private firearm sales. That is presumably closing the so-called “ Gun show loophole”.

That’s enough right there. Anyone who supports that and is willing to work towards compromises with anti-gun democrats needs to be sent home.

 

[jumpinjoe]

According to the article he is trying to outlaw private firearm sales. That is presumably closing the so-called “ Gun show loophole”.

That’s enough right there. Anyone who supports that and is willing to work towards compromises with anti-gun democrats needs to be sent home.

Bob, I don't know much about this guy Cornyn, but if what I read in the article regarding his stand is not too far off, I don't think I have too much to gripe about. I didn't read it as him trying to outlaw private sales, what I understood is that he's trying to rein in people who do more than an occasional private sale .... in the write up he's calling them "unlicensed firearms dealers" which is a 'catch-all' term used by many who don't have a better definition for those who sell way more than an occasional gun. And far too often make a profit from those many sales.

Technically they're not dealers of any kind, licensed or unlicensed. They're scumbags who skirt the law that allows law abiding folks like you and me to occasionally sell or gift a gun to a friend, or to our sons, dads, brothers, etc. But until ATF&E re-writes the definition of these yahoos, you and I will suffer any consequences they bring on the gun owning public. The real issue with this whole thing is the definition of a "Dealer" is far too broad to catch up to those who skirt and corrupt the definition.

This is from the article: " ......................." Cornyn has discussed reining in unlicensed firearms dealers, such as the seller who allowed a mentally ill man in Texas to purchase a gun that was later used to in a 2019 mass shooting, and ensuring enforcement of current laws."

The example quoted above from the article is what causes trouble for all of us who try to stay on the right side ...... from what I understand this sale involved a seller who knew absolutely nothing about the buyer. I can truthfully say that in all my years of being a gun owner, I have never sold a single gun to anyone whom I didn't know personally as a law abiding and responsible buyer. Probably sold a couple dozen too ..... over about 60+- years.

The article then went on to say that he's also arguing for the enforcement of existing gun laws already on the books. I don't know, but I'm pretty OK with that too..... most of them at least. I think most of us have all argued for that in times past.

So to be clear, if these are the things he's advocating for in any kind of agreement, I'm pretty much OK with them, and for now I don't have any other info to go with that says he's doing anything different. Like I said earlier, I don't know a lot about him period. Just sayin'.

 

[Bassbob]

Bob, I don't know much about this guy Cornyn, but if what I read in the article regarding his stand is not too far off, I don't think I have too much to gripe about. I didn't read it as him trying to outlaw private sales, what I understood is that he's trying to rein in people who do more than an occasional private sale .... in the write up he's calling them "unlicensed firearms dealers" which is a 'catch-all' term used by many who don't have a better definition for those who sell way more than an occasional gun. And far too often make a profit from those many sales.

Technically they're not dealers of any kind, licensed or unlicensed. They're scumbags who skirt the law that allows law abiding folks like you and me to occasionally sell or gift a gun to a friend, or to our sons, dads, brothers, etc. But until ATF&E re-writes the definition of these yahoos, you and I will suffer any consequences they bring on the gun owning public. The real issue with this whole thing is the definition of a "Dealer" is far too broad to catch up to those who skirt and corrupt the definition.

This is from the article: " ......................." Cornyn has discussed reining in unlicensed firearms dealers, such as the seller who allowed a mentally ill man in Texas to purchase a gun that was later used to in a 2019 mass shooting, and ensuring enforcement of current laws."

The example quoted above from the article is what causes trouble for all of us who try to stay on the right side ...... from what I understand this sale involved a seller who knew absolutely nothing about the buyer. I can truthfully say that in all my years of being a gun owner, I have never sold a single gun to anyone whom I didn't know personally as a law abiding and responsible buyer. Probably sold a couple dozen too ..... over about 60+- years.

The article then went on to say that he's also arguing for the enforcement of existing gun laws already on the books. I don't know, but I'm pretty OK with that too..... most of them at least. I think most of us have all argued for that in times past.

So to be clear, if these are the things he's advocating for in any kind of agreement, I'm pretty much OK with them, and for now I don't have any other info to go with that says he's doing anything different. Like I said earlier, I don't know a lot about him period. Just sayin'.

Yeah, argued as in pointing out that certain segments of the population, namely criminals are allowed to break current gun laws and get off with a slap on the wrist or nothing at all, yet here are the same politicians calling for even more laws. Laws which only effect the law-abiding.

And for the record, there are no gun laws that apply to law abiding citizens that I am okay with.


Please explain to me how this new law to reign in "Unlicensed gun sellers" is going to work where it doesn't effect your ability to trade a gun to your buddy, sell one to your brother or give one to your son.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Yeah, argued as in pointing out that certain segments of the population, namely criminals are allowed to break current gun laws and get off with a slap on the wrist or nothing at all, yet here are the same politicians calling for even more laws. Laws which only effect the law-abiding.

And for the record, there are no gun laws that apply to law abiding citizens that I am okay with.


Please explain to me how this new law to reign in "Unlicensed gun sellers" is going to work where it doesn't effect your ability to trade a gun to your buddy, sell one to your brother or give one to your son.

Bob, this is exactly why I said the ATF&E has to define what constitutes a "dealer". Just an example here, but if they say a dealer is someone who sells more than 10, or 12, or 30, or however many guns per month, or year, or over what ever time period, and make an non-proportionate income from those sales, then those scumbags who do sell that many and to anyone with the money to buy them, then you're right ..... all private sales can be included in the law. What I think I read though, is that he's trying to get a hard definition of a 'dealer' so that folks like you and I can sell one or two on occasion to a friend, or gift one to our sons or dads, etc without any issues. I didn't read into it that he's trying to ban any/all private sales.

Personally I detest anyone who fits this category, because they're the ones who make all gun owners look bad. That example in the article makes that pretty clear. And I can honestly say there are good gun laws on the books I'd like to see more enforced, like not selling to a mental deficient person (like a psychopath), or a hard core drug abuser (not describing an occasional weed burner here), or an habitual woman and/or child beater, etc.

And know this .... as bad as I hate the NICS background check system, I don't have a better answer as to how to prevent those sales right now. As long as it doesn't prevent me from buying a gun when I want it, I don't necessarily see it as an infringement, just small delay and slight aggravation. In these type cases I can see the end justify the means. However, I will never agree to a national/local data base of gun owners. Even this I don't see as an infringement, but an invasion of privacy (4th amendment IIRC). Any amount of 'waiting period' or 'cooling off period' I see as an infringement.

I'm pretty limited as to what laws I will accept, but there are those that are simply sensible. I don't see these laws as an infringement to my 2nd amendment rights. I see these as affecting those people who have, of their own volition, forfeited their 2nd amendment (or any other) rights. And know too I hate the term "Sensible gun control". None of what I've written above is 'sensible "gun" control', but they are 'sensible "bad guy" control'.

As much as I agree with and support the 2nd amendment, I also agree that those I've mentioned above have the right to forfeit theirs. And just to be clear, I would never accept to any degree any law that prevented me and/or you from selling and/or gifting a gun to our own son or dad or brother, or even a good, well known friend. But that's a significant difference from the "unlicensed dealer" mentioned above, wouldn't you say?

 

[Bassbob]

Bob, this is exactly why I said the ATF&E has to define what constitutes a "dealer". Just an example here, but if they say a dealer is someone who sells more than 10, or 12, or 30, or however many guns per month, or year, or over what ever time period, and make an non-proportionate income from those sales, then those scumbags who do sell that many and to anyone with the money to buy them, then you're right ..... all private sales can be included in the law. What I think I read though, is that he's trying to get a hard definition of a 'dealer' so that folks like you and I can sell one or two on occasion to a friend, or gift one to our sons or dads, etc without any issues. I didn't read into it that he's trying to ban any/all private sales.

Personally I detest anyone who fits this category, because they're the ones who make all gun owners look bad. That example in the article makes that pretty clear. And I can honestly say there are good gun laws on the books I'd like to see more enforced, like not selling to a mental deficient person (like a psychopath), or a hard core drug abuser (not describing an occasional weed burner here), or an habitual woman and/or child beater, etc.

And know this .... as bad as I hate the NICS background check system, I don't have a better answer as to how to prevent those sales right now. As long as it doesn't prevent me from buying a gun when I want it, I don't necessarily see it as an infringement, just small delay and slight aggravation. In these type cases I can see the end justify the means. However, I will never agree to a national/local data base of gun owners. Even this I don't see as an infringement, but an invasion of privacy (4th amendment IIRC). Any amount of 'waiting period' or 'cooling off period' I see as an infringement.

I'm pretty limited as to what laws I will accept, but there are those that are simply sensible. I don't see these laws as an infringement to my 2nd amendment rights. I see these as affecting those people who have, of their own volition, forfeited their 2nd amendment (or any other) rights. And know too I hate the term "Sensible gun control". None of what I've written above is 'sensible "gun" control', but they are 'sensible "bad guy" control'.

As much as I agree with and support the 2nd amendment, I also agree that those I've mentioned above have the right to forfeit theirs. And just to be clear, I would never accept to any degree any law that prevented me and/or you from selling and/or gifting a gun to our own son or dad or brother, or even a good, well known friend. But that's a significant difference from the "unlicensed dealer" mentioned above, wouldn't you say?

The above mentioned aren't law abiding citizens.

 

[uspatriot1960]

I’m not completely sure, but I remember hearing a number of years ago that there is already a set number of sales an individual can make without needing to be a licensed gun dealer. I believe that number was 75. So, if you sold more than 75 guns in a year, you’d have to get an FFL.

There are plenty of gun laws on the books already. The problem is they aren’t being enforced. We don’t need any more. In fact the number of laws need to be reduced. If Cornyn is there to prevent new laws by telling them to just enforce current laws, I’m ok with that for right now. But I believe there is already a law regarding how many guns you can sell without having to become a FFL, so this would also fall under the existing law category…

 

[BobM]

Bob, this is exactly why I said the ATF&E has to define what constitutes a "dealer". Just an example here, but if they say a dealer is someone who sells more than 10, or 12, or 30, or however many guns per month, or year, or over what ever time period, and make an non-proportionate income from those sales, then those scumbags who do sell that many and to anyone with the money to buy them, then you're right ..... all private sales can be included in the law. What I think I read though, is that he's trying to get a hard definition of a 'dealer' so that folks like you and I can sell one or two on occasion to a friend, or gift one to our sons or dads, etc without any issues. I didn't read into it that he's trying to ban any/all private sales.

Personally I detest anyone who fits this category, because they're the ones who make all gun owners look bad. That example in the article makes that pretty clear. And I can honestly say there are good gun laws on the books I'd like to see more enforced, like not selling to a mental deficient person (like a psychopath), or a hard core drug abuser (not describing an occasional weed burner here), or an habitual woman and/or child beater, etc.

And know this .... as bad as I hate the NICS background check system, I don't have a better answer as to how to prevent those sales right now. As long as it doesn't prevent me from buying a gun when I want it, I don't necessarily see it as an infringement, just small delay and slight aggravation. In these type cases I can see the end justify the means. However, I will never agree to a national/local data base of gun owners. Even this I don't see as an infringement, but an invasion of privacy (4th amendment IIRC). Any amount of 'waiting period' or 'cooling off period' I see as an infringement.

I'm pretty limited as to what laws I will accept, but there are those that are simply sensible. I don't see these laws as an infringement to my 2nd amendment rights. I see these as affecting those people who have, of their own volition, forfeited their 2nd amendment (or any other) rights. And know too I hate the term "Sensible gun control". None of what I've written above is 'sensible "gun" control', but they are 'sensible "bad guy" control'.

As much as I agree with and support the 2nd amendment, I also agree that those I've mentioned above have the right to forfeit theirs. And just to be clear, I would never accept to any degree any law that prevented me and/or you from selling and/or gifting a gun to our own son or dad or brother, or even a good, well known friend. But that's a significant difference from the "unlicensed dealer" mentioned above, wouldn't you say?

Many good words and thoughts there JJ, thanks for them.

Am not thinking any one known individual person on this planet who can actually predict the future of every single person on it accurately for starters. Not meant or intended as a slam to anyone, just plain fact.

Issues have seen is like say for example with FBI/NICS is it's far from perfect from my experience. For all the good it could do or was supposed to do, it doesn't & still hasn't? It may redirect someone good or not to go another direction is about all? In many times creating as much harm as good? May not sound too rough until it effects you or someone close to you's needs, then, it's a lengthy nightmare of sorts until all sorted out if ever? Likely more harm in most cases? May not sound too lethal, but it could be if someone needs a firearm for protection & is denied, delayed or put on another type of hold? To me, it's an overly idealistic poorly run system that shouldn't exist until one can be found if ever to replace it? The best system is still national gun safety training for those who choose to use firearms in my opinion. That can help weed out those who are not capable of owning or using one. Likely better than system now in place by personal observation & training? But, how many people are actually qualified in mental evaluations, while much to most is still based on pure speculation & guesswork?

The dealer part you mention makes some sense. But, then again, where does it start and stop? I can see your point of being able to sell, trade, barter, gift, swap whatever with friends & family being good for average person and agree. - But, the liability garbage has to stop for sellers of any kind because the seller can not honestly say or predict in most cases whether or not someone in the future's going to do this or that in most instances. They can usually only guess at best. In a few instances yes, if someones visably violent or depressed at the time of sale not a good idea to sell or give them any kind of a weapon ....at that time. - Like selling someone who's drunk another drink? Afterwards, a big maybe depending on someone's past or present condition at the time? Still, who's to say? Good or bad, people can & do change depending on events or other things going on in their lives. - Like someone's recently been born, married, divorced, moved or passed away, some emotional event can effect most anyone up or down? Time can mend many things, while sometimes it can't and won't. - Keep all that in mind when thinking of infringements may help? Likely why it was originally posted that way as infringements? It didn't specify type of infringement, so it means all in my opinion.

 

[Pitdogg2]

I can truthfully say that in all my years of being a gun owner, I have never sold a single gun to anyone whom I didn't know personally as a law abiding and responsible buyer.

I can say the same. I've known some fine folks who are law abiding and responsible I still wouldn't sell a firearm to.
Just for my own piece of mind if nothing else.
I believe a number of years ago Illinois made it illegal to sell a firearm to someone without going to an FFL for a transfer and background check. Previously all you had to do is write down the foid number and expiration date of the foid. The one time I bought a gun from a friend I made him do both write down both my foid number, expiration date AND my driver license number and address and told him he needed to keep it for 10 yrs. per the law as it was wrote. So I had my copy and he had his we both kept a copy just in case.

 

[jumpinjoe]

The above mentioned aren't law abiding citizens.

I agree with you. I think we were both trying to make the same point/s.

I’m not completely sure, but I remember hearing a number of years ago that there is already a set number of sales an individual can make without needing to be a licensed gun dealer. I believe that number was 75. So, if you sold more than 75 guns in a year, you’d have to get an FFL.

There are plenty of gun laws on the books already. The problem is they aren’t being enforced. We don’t need any more. In fact the number of laws need to be reduced. If Cornyn is there to prevent new laws by telling them to just enforce current laws, I’m ok with that for right now. But I believe there is already a law regarding how many guns you can sell without having to become a FFL, so this would also fall under the existing law category…

I'm not totally certain but I think that's actually the problem .... they don't mention any specific number of guns being bought or sold in any given time. They talk about deriving a substantial amount of your income from those sales, and/or buying with an intended purpose of reselling for some profit, etc. And that's why it's so damned hard to pinpoint what makes one a dealer or not. However, there is no definition nor any such thing as an "unlicensed" dealer.

Since I've never bought or sold any large number of guns, certainly never with an intention to make a substantial portion of my income from it, and never to anyone I didn't know personally, I never looked real hard into it. So, I'm certainly willing to be corrected in my understanding if need be.

 

[BobM]

I agree with you. I think we were both trying to make the same point/s.

I'm not totally certain but I think that's actually the problem .... they don't mention any specific number of guns being bought or sold in any given time. They talk about deriving a substantial amount of your income from those sales, and/or buying with an intended purpose of reselling for some profit, etc. And that's why it's so damned hard to pinpoint what makes one a dealer or not. However, there is no definition nor any such thing as an "unlicensed" dealer.

Since I've never bought or sold any large number of guns, certainly never with an intention to make a substantial portion of my income from it, and never to anyone I didn't know personally, I never looked real hard into it. So, I'm certainly willing to be corrected in my understanding if need be.

Here's a link to the ATF that may help you JJ,

See:

"Sales of Handguns​

Licensees must report the sale of two or more handguns if they occur at the same time or within five consecutive business days of each other."

Reporting Multiple Firearms Sales | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to send a report to ATF when there is a sale of multiple firearms to the same purchaser within a certain time period. ATF uses the information gathered from multiple sales transactions to investigate possible firearms...

www.atf.gov

 

[uspatriot1960]

Here’s a short thread on this from ar15.com

how many guns can a person sell before FFL is required - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

Seems kind of nebulous. And sounds like I’m wrong about that 75 number…

 

[jumpinjoe]

C'mon guys, there's nothing here that either of you have said that I would disagree with. And certainly we can never guarantee that someone we know as law-abiding will always be law-abiding. None of us can know the future. In fact I've heard it said that all criminals and crazies aren't, until they are. Fortunately in our free country we don't deem anyone a criminal until they have committed a crime, and we don't hold them to a criminal's standard until they are one. But we do the best we can with what we have to work with.

As for the current BG check system..... We all know it can't/doesn't catch every one needing caught trying to buy a gun and not worthy. And we also know that even the ones it does catch can still go to other sources to buy what they want. Unfortunately those 'other sources' are the ones we've been talking about previously. Some will, some will give it up. And what really bothers me is that even when someone is denied for reason, it's more than likely he/she will never be prosecuted as they should be.

We also know that those who are denied by the NICS are not always legitimately denied because of mistakes, bad data entry, etc, etc in the BG check data base. But again, it's the best we have right now to hopefully weed out those I mentioned earlier .... the mental defects, the serious drug abusers, and most definitely the women/child abusers. I truly wish there was a better way, but for now I just don't know what it is.

Earlier I said as long as I don't get denied, I see the BG check as simply a slight delay and aggravation since it is only a momentary delay and not a denial for me to 'KEEP and BEAR'. What I see as an actual infringement is when/if I, or anyone else is denied our desired purchase indefinitely for no legitimate reason, or when/if the gov't tries to tell me what gun I can legally buy and/or own and which I can't (?), or what requirements I must meet such as mandatory safety training, mandatory personal licensing/permitting, etc. I believe every responsible gun owner should get professional safety training and I believe the 2nd amendment is all the license we should need.

The bottom line is this, do what we can to eliminate those who either do not deserve or have themselves forfeited their right to the extent possible. And until we find a better way to deny those who deserve to be denied, I just don't know what else we can do.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Here’s a short thread on this from ar15.com

how many guns can a person sell before FFL is required - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

Seems kind of nebulous. And sounds like I’m wrong about that 75 number…

That's the real hell of it. Until there is a definitive definition of a 'dealer', the law can be pretty nebulous as well. I'm hoping and thinking that's part of what Cornyn is trying to get us to. In fact, many so-called gun laws are nebulous to the point it makes it very difficult at times to prosecute them.

 

[BobM]

Here’s a short thread on this from ar15.com

how many guns can a person sell before FFL is required - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

Seems kind of nebulous. And sounds like I’m wrong about that 75 number…

Thanks for posting info, Is a bit old, but useful.
Yah scoured around too, have heard a number before too from a good source, but number seems elusive now. Believe it was from ATF, but where is it buried is question? Intent seems to play a part in buying & selling. But, that's almost speculative in some ways? No one keeps something forever? Likely find correct info when looking for something else by accident is way usually happens?

 

[jumpinjoe]

Here's a link to the ATF that may help you JJ,

See:

"Sales of Handguns​

Licensees must report the sale of two or more handguns if they occur at the same time or within five consecutive business days of each other."

Reporting Multiple Firearms Sales | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to send a report to ATF when there is a sale of multiple firearms to the same purchaser within a certain time period. ATF uses the information gathered from multiple sales transactions to investigate possible firearms...

www.atf.gov

Bob, this requirement applies to those already FFL 'licensed'. Here's what it says about individual (private) sales:

Individual Sales​

"Under federal law, there are no recordkeeping requirements for transferring a firearm between two individuals who are not federal firearms licensees. However, there are individuals who cannot purchase or possess a firearm known as prohibited persons. As a seller, you should make every effort to ensure you are not transferring a firearm to a prohibited person."

That last line is the precise reason I've never in all those years sold to anyone I didn't know personally as a law-abiding, responsible gun owner.

 

[BobM]

C'mon guys, there's nothing here that either of you have said that I would disagree with. And certainly we can never guarantee that someone we know as law-abiding will always be law-abiding. None of us can know the future. In fact I've heard it said that all criminals and crazies aren't, until they are. Fortunately in our free country we don't deem anyone a criminal until they have committed a crime, and we don't hold them to a criminal's standard until they are one. But we do the best we can with what we have to work with.

As for the current BG check system..... We all know it can't/doesn't catch every one needing caught trying to buy a gun and not worthy. And we also know that even the ones it does catch can still go to other sources to buy what they want. Unfortunately those 'other sources' are the ones we've been talking about previously. Some will, some will give it up. And what really bothers me is that even when someone is denied for reason, it's more than likely he/she will never be prosecuted as they should be.

We also know that those who are denied by the NICS are not always legitimately denied because of mistakes, bad data entry, etc, etc in the BG check data base. But again, it's the best we have right now to hopefully weed out those I mentioned earlier .... the mental defects, the serious drug abusers, and most definitely the women/child abusers. I truly wish there was a better way, but for now I just don't know what it is.

Earlier I said as long as I don't get denied, I see the BG check as simply a slight delay and aggravation since it is only a momentary delay and not a denial for me to 'KEEP and BEAR'. What I see as an actual infringement is when/if I, or anyone else is denied our desired purchase indefinitely for no legitimate reason, or when/if the gov't tries to tell me what gun I can legally buy and/or own and which I can't (?), or what requirements I must meet such as mandatory safety training, mandatory personal licensing/permitting, etc. I believe every responsible gun owner should get professional safety training and I believe the 2nd amendment is all the license we should need.

The bottom line is this, do what we can to eliminate those who either do not deserve or have themselves forfeited their right to the extent possible. And until we find a better way to deny those who deserve to be denied, I just don't know what else we can do.

"The bottom line is this, do what we can to eliminate those who either do not deserve or have themselves forfeited their right to the extent possible. And until we find a better way to deny those who deserve to be denied, I just don't know what else we can do."

Is a head scratcher alright JJ,
Am thinking that may be all everyone is really looking for w/o violating our rights as law abiding citizens is the bottom the line of what to go by that's truly fair for everyone?

Maybe as simply putting a "D" for Denied and not saying why to everyone else on peoples legal personal photo ID? Possibly a color or other marking may work too? Mental conditions involve HIPPA so that's a no go as to why, criminal reasons usually don't involve HIPPA. The simple "D" or other marking may work for any exclusion if it were just that easy in every scenario? Am sure people would likely be tagged as criminals or something else when word got out as for what D or other mark stood for though? In the mean time, the current system we have now is like playing an almost senseless confusing, redundant, never ending shell game at an amusement park for too many people?

 

[jumpinjoe]

That's the real hell of it. Until there is a definitive definition of a 'dealer', the law can be pretty nebulous as well. I'm hoping and thinking that's part of what Cornyn is trying to get us to. In fact, many so-called gun laws are nebulous to the point it makes it very difficult at times to prosecute them.

Don't know where the hell my head was at when I wrote this .... "definitive definition". Don't even know if there is such a thing. But y'all knew what I meant, didn't y'all?