How Texas’s gun laws allow Mexican cartels to arm themselves to the teeth

[jaF0]

Fussin' with the BBs is like shitting your pants in a dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling but everybody notices and points and laughs.

 

[Dribble]

And my point is you can't separate the issue. Fentanyl enters the US and guns leave the US via the same individuals. They carry one one way and the other the other. And both are condoned by the political entities in the area. It is where they make their campaign money. If you don't want to focus on violence...focus on the Fentanyl and you fight the same battle. Fight the battle where the battle is.

 

[Chobham]

Firstly the bolded part of your post: It doesn't matter if they were smuggled or put on an open manifest, they were shipped in either instance. Ain't no other way to get them from one point to another. To insist otherwise, as you did, is disingenuous at best. To use one of your terms, you're picking fly shit out of the pepper.

~snip for brevity~

18 U.S. Code 922

All they have to do is enter the U.S. on a non-immigration visa, buy a hunting license and they can buy what ever gun they desire. Now Abbots chin music about the "damned cartels" sounds kind of hollow when you factor in that Texas could stop a lot of the gun traffic to Mexico which goes directly to the cartels, by passing a few regs huh? Nothing like talking out of both sides of your face.

As far as this statement, "Yes, the various states can still impose certain restrictions on the purchase of firearms, but their ability to do so is very circumscribed now." I agree states rights to limit firearms ownership has been somewhat curtailed, but not as much as you try to make it seem. But that's another discussion for another time.

Comshaw

Here's just one of many

Firearms and Fentanyl

The link is a more recent operation but you can reliably see a similar press release approx. every 6 months. Use the "firearms fentanyl arrests (plug in the city of choice here)" as search terms, you should have no problem getting recent results. And that brings up the point that guns and drugs go hand in hand, they are both fungible trade items.

It's no secret that I have breakfast with one or more federal agent(s) every Fri. AM. and for that reason I get little details on operations AFTER the operation is concluded. Obviously sources and methods are kept under wraps but certain facts are talked about that aren't in the official press releases. But there are 3 things that ALL the operations have in common, Firearms, Fentanyl, and Felons. The last I heard is that there are 400(+/-) firearms locked up in evidence awaiting processing and/or destruction. And as a footnote, those particular agents are against more gun control laws but fully support the prosecution of existing federal laws.

Re. the US Code. That is FEDERAL law that neither Abbot, nor any other governor, have anything to do with. There are literally thousands of background check denials of purchase annually yet there are only approx. 32 prosecutions annually. Why so few prosecutions? Unenforced laws are worthless laws.

The states ability to curtail a constitutional right have been dealt a near fatal blow by the Bruen decision. Various states are scrambling to pass laws that circumvent the decision but they are being smacked down damn near as fast as they are passed. As many of these new laws are percolating up through the courts it will be a couple of years before the full extent of that ruling is manifest.

 

[HisArpy]

The quote that you provided proves my point that there are differences between states:

"In addition to federal gun laws, all state governments and some local governments have their own laws that regulate firearms."

You may have been a good attorney once upon a time, but so was Rudy Giuliani.

If that's what you want to believe then do so.

However, Mexico already tried suing and that suit was tossed. They've now tried suing a 2nd time and this suit will also be tossed.

Why? Because what people ILLEGALLY do with the product they purchased doesn't convey liability to the retailer or manufacturer.

Which let's everyone with at least 3 functioning brain cells know that what you believe, ain't so. But you go ahead and believe if that's what comforts you at night.

 

[HisArpy]

Ohhh.,..testy! I never said ANYTHING about buying guns illegally. Actually the OP's post was about guns being bought LEGALLY and shipped to Mexico. Or do you have a reading deficit? Apparently you don't have the metal acuity to understand a comparative question. My bad for thinking you might be able to understand. Let me rephrase to a less figurative type, one that doesn't require as much gray matter.
Comparing a gun purchase in California and one in Texas, which would be an easier buy? Which would be a more difficult buy? Do you even know?

You claim that the states don't have any control over gun sales, IE:

"I also think you dumfuks need to go back to skool about which level of government controls gun sales.

Hint: it ain't the states."

Then you turn around and say:
"...The minimum legal requirements to buy a gun are specified in Federal law. If states which to impose greater regulations, so long as those regulations don't infringe upon the Constitution, they can do so."

So which is it? States have no control over gun sales, or they do have control (by instituting stricter laws). You can't have it both ways. As a claimed lawyer you of all people should know you should be specific, accurate and truthful in any fact you claim. So which "truth" are you gunna claim is a fact? Do the states have control, or don't they? Choose wisely, there isn't any wiggle room.

Comshaw

Oh my, the ol' razzle dazzle deflection.

What you won't do to delude yourself...

 

[AlexBailey]

If that's what you want to believe then do so.

However, Mexico already tried suing and that suit was tossed. They've now tried suing a 2nd time and this suit will also be tossed.

Why? Because what people ILLEGALLY do with the product they purchased doesn't convey liability to the retailer or manufacturer.

Which let's everyone with at least 3 functioning brain cells know that what you believe, ain't so. But you go ahead and believe if that's what comforts you at night.

You can't even follow the conversation, you nitwit.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Are automatic weapons available in all states? Do all states have the same waiting laws? Do all states allow the sale of 50. caliber rifles? ...

Pretty sure you can't buy automatic weapons in any state without a federal license. More than pretty sure. Certain even.

 

[AlexBailey]

Pretty sure you can't buy automatic weapons in any state without a federal license. More than pretty sure. Certain even.

But you are aware that there are differences between state laws regarding firearms, no?

Ole' Harpy says there are no differences and he says that states and other localities can have additional laws.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

But you are aware that there are differences between state laws regarding firearms, no?

Yeah. So? Haven't seen anyone say there isnt.
The state camt be less regulated than federal laws tho. More but not less.

 

[HisArpy]

You can't even follow the conversation, you nitwit.

If that's what you want to believe.

OTOH, at least I know that the Feds are the ones who control gun laws and not the States.

For instance, in those states which don't allow fully automatic weapons, that's either being, or will be, challenged and if the courts follow SCOTUS precedent the restrictions will be tossed.

At which point your entire argument goes up in the same kind of smoke you imbibed in when you formulated it.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

If that's what you want to believe.

OTOH, at least I know that the Feds are the ones who control gun laws and not the States.

For instance, in those states which don't allow fully automatic weapons, that's either being, or will be, challenged and if the courts follow SCOTUS precedent the restrictions will be tossed.

At which point your entire argument goes up in the same kind of smoke you imbibed in when you formulated it.

Autos will never be legal without an FFL.

 

[AlexBailey]

If that's what you want to believe.

OTOH, at least I know that the Feds are the ones who control gun laws and not the States.

For instance, in those states which don't allow fully automatic weapons, that's either being, or will be, challenged and if the courts follow SCOTUS precedent the restrictions will be tossed.

At which point your entire argument goes up in the same kind of smoke you imbibed in when you formulated it.

So you're saying that I will be wrong in the future?

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

OTOH if someone is shooting at me I'd rather they had a full auto. Odds are far better than someone taking time to aim.

 

[HisArpy]

Autos will never be legal without an FFL.

Maybe. It depends on whether the NFA withstands the challenge under Bruen. If yes, then a tax stamp will be required. At that point anyone can pay the $200 and go have fun burning a hole in their wallet.

If no, then those States with laws prohibiting FA will be screwed. Interestingly enough, they could be screwed anyway if the court determines that they cannot ban possession of FA weapons, tax stamp or no tax stamp.

 

[HisArpy]

So you're saying that I will be wrong in the future?

No. I'm saying your head is currently up your ass now AND will probably continue to be so in the future.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Maybe. It depends on whether the NFA withstands the challenge under Bruen. If yes, then a tax stamp will be required. At that point anyone can pay the $200 and go have fun burning a hole in their wallet.

If no, then those States with laws prohibiting FA will be screwed. Interestingly enough, they could be screwed anyway if the court determines that they cannot ban possession of FA weapons, tax stamp or no tax stamp.

Name one state where you can buy an auto without a license right now.

 

[AlexBailey]

No. I'm saying your head is currently up your ass now AND will probably continue to be so in the future.

I like that you're thinking about my ass.

 

[Chobham]

I won't be holding my breath for full auto's to become available without the tax stamp. However I do believe that the 1986 legislation is in serious jeopardy.

 

[Chobham]

While we're at it, the "ghost gun" law that was passed is blowing up in the legislators faces. The law was terminally flawed and that's before it's challenged on constitutional grounds where it is likely to fail as well.

 

[HisArpy]

I won't be holding my breath for full auto's to become available without the tax stamp. However I do believe that the 1986 legislation is in serious jeopardy.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

I was positive that Dobbs wouldn't overturn Roe. Not after 50 years. Look how that turned out.

 

[HisArpy]

I like that you're thinking about my ass.

I think about everyone's ass and how perfect they look when striped by a whip. For some reason that always brings out the unique personality.

Yours could probably use some color in its cheeks.

 

[AlexBailey]

I think about everyone's ass and how perfect they look when striped by a whip. For some reason that always brings out the unique personality.

Yours could probably use some color in its cheeks.

Ooh, you’re kinky too!

 

[HisArpy]

Yes Master! Can I have another?

Fixed for you.

 

[AlexBailey]

Fixed for you.

Be careful or I’ll start sending you pics.

 

[HisArpy]

Be careful or I’ll start sending you pics.

Sorry, not a woman no matter what standard you want to use for a definition of what a woman is or isn't. Even if I did fit into that category, unsolicited pics aren't ever appropriate no matter how proud you are of your various body parts. Then of course, pics don't do for me what a good striping will do for you.

I'm thinking about whether you can have another so just be quiet and wait. You'll know if I decide you can have one.