Chucktshoes

Motive =/= intent they aren’t the same thing. Intent makes a homicide a murder, but motive isn’t required to prove intent. It just makes proving intent easier. Hypothetical time. I’m walking down the street, calmly pull out my gun and shoot a total stranger in the head and kill them in front of witnesses. Then I say nothing about why or my state of mind. In nowhere is that not still murder. My motive is unprovable, but the intent to kill was easily provable by the deliberate nature of my actions. Her words doomed her for sure, but there’s plenty of case law that shows that the deliberation required in most murder statutes doesn’t require advance planning, but only a deliberate decision to kill that can be made on the spot.

Intent, yes the intent to kill or engage in an action that would obviously likely result in the death of another. It doesn’t matter why you want to kill the person, only that you wanted to kill them. Proving motive makes that easier, sure, but isn’t required in the least. I can be proven wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s the standard everywhere.

I really respect Judge Nap, but he’s wrong about the requirement of a motive. No level of murder requires proving a motive. It only requires a conscious decision to kill. Manslaughter would have been a easy choice for a guaranteed conviction, but it did meet the definition by statute. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

There is a purpose and reason for it relating to the software and the gun was shown and demonstrated to be empty and without a magazine.

No and no.

The best way to win a fight is to not take part in it. The question should never be “am I allowed to use deadly force in _____ situation.” Thats the wrong way to approach the mental work involved in defensive force, though it is quite common amongst folks when they first start carrying. I myself asked the same questions until others here helped me see that my thinking was misaligned. The question should always be “did I do my best to avoid any situation where I may be compelled by lack of reasonable options to use deadly force?” If the answer is yes and you unfortunately found yourself having to use deadly force, at that point your fate is no longer in your own hands. It’s in the hands of police, a prosecutor and possibly a judge and jury. That reality, ugly as it may be doesn’t stop me from being as prepared as I can be to engage in the necessary (key word) amounts of violence to protect myself or my loved ones because the other options aren’t acceptable. Reading through most of your proposed scenarios, my view is informed by being a truck driver who has dealt with more than one road rager in my career. The main pieces of advice I would give is 1) don’t ever get out of your vehicle and engage with the rager in the first place. 2) if you are in a stationary vehicle with someone approaching you, don’t remain stationary! Leave!

Be careful! Do yourself (and your wallet) a favor if you’re really impressed with that Leupold and don’t ever put a Nightforce optic to your eye. They’re a hella expensive addiction to take up.

I don’t think either one of us is saying that it places the burden of record keeping on TGO or the gun show, but I’ll only speak for myself from here forward. This proposal wouldn’t reclassify TGO or similar entities. It also wouldn’t cause the Arby’s scenario you laid out. TGO already is a commercial entity that provides space for the buying and selling of items, to include firearms. It places no new burdens on the already existing commercial entity, but it does reclassify the transaction itself based upon the involvement of that commercial entity. That is what would then provide the new burden on those taking part in said transactions to seek out the services of a transfer agent. The Arby’s scenario is absurd because Arby’s doesn’t provide space for the purpose of entering into private transactions of firearms nor the listing of firearms for sale. TGO, gun shows, online sales ad sites, etc. do. Once again, I agree with you that this is BAD. It’s very, very bad. It’s bad enough that me, mister anarchist who doesn’t vote or generally dirty his hands with direct politics action, is imploring folks to get in touch with their Congress critters to ensure they understand the political consequences of supporting this. This proposal is only a quarter step from UBCs and half a step from creating a registry. It’s every kind of bad we’ve been expecting for a hot minute and it’s time to go to work to prevent it.

So, pretty much exactly like I called it. It’s nice to know I’m not too crazy.

TGO isn’t selling firearms, and neither are the promoters of a gun show or most of the sales generated through the big online ad sites. I agree with everything you wrote, but I still believe that the wording of that idea document sets the stage for the legislation to 100% include online advertising/for sale ads. I mean, after all, “All we are doing is connecting people with each other, and the transactions of personally owned items that occur between individuals aren't commercial sales.” describes private party sales at gun shows as well. We all know that “gun show loophole” means all private party sales to the folks who say it. Also, anyone who has been to a gun show in the last decade knows they’re not well attended anymore. Most private party sales are arranged through the internet, so there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will be aimed directly at us and anywhere else that provides a space for advertisements of firearm sales. So I second what you said about burning up the representative’s lines. They need to know that they’re being watched and will suffer if they attempt a fast one. *edited to add* I’m probably coming off as a little bit paranoid here, of course that’s usually warranted when dealing with the government, but I just can’t see any way to criminalize a private party transfer arranged at a gun show without criminalizing a private party transfer arranged through the net.

In rereading the language used, “a background-check requirement would be extended to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows” I believe it absolutely would include all classified ads. I would posit that a private sale made between friends/family that did not involve a posted ad listing would be what is exempt. It would break down like this, list an ad on a website, publication, or go to a commercial gathering such as a gun show or swap meet, BG check needed. Your buddy Bob asks you how much you want for that revolver or you ask uncle Charlie how much he’s willing to give you for that Glock of yours he’s been drooling over, no BG check. That would place a BG check requirement on far and away the vast majority of private sales.

The problem with laws passed like this is that terms like “commercial sale” are left up to the regulatory agency (BATFE) to define. Dollars to donuts, the sales listings of sites like Armslist, Gunbroker, and TGO get classified as a “commercial sale”. After all, there is a commercial transaction involved in the posting of the ads through per ad or membership fees.

They need to find something to do to reacquire the civilian market. If they can’t figure that out, they’re gonna go the way of the Dodo.

I’ve said it, and I know others have said it. If you want to get to the bottom of the reason for the change, look around at all the other sponsors. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of them don’t want their logos featured next to those of manufacturers of “assault weapons” or other scary guns. I’d bet serious cash that folks like Coca-Cola, FedEx, or the big banks said “put our logo next to something like that and you’ll never see another dollar from us.”

Is THAT what you appreciates about me?

So, who got the Letterkenny reference?

Nah. I’m too tired to dick with it.

From my perspective in the driver’s seat of my semi, the answer is a frightening “yes, they undoubtedly are”.

I’d venture to say that in the grand scheme of things, what takes place on the local level is of far more import than what happens in Washington.

Whatever happened to tarring and feathering or running folks out of town on a rail. Just saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hey now, I like my postman. I don’t want to give her a hernia. Also, threads merged.

That always gets me too. Don’t let them get word that I buy ammo at a minimum of like 1k at a time.