TexasCHLforum.com

Let me give you a scenario where unlicensed carry would help someone:

A mother has taken her kids and left an abusive husband. She has a restraining order but he has made it clear that he intends to harm or kill her because she has left him. She purchased/borrowed/was given a handgun for defense and has applied for her license, taken her class and mailed her paperwork in. DPS has just received it and started the background check when the estranged husband finds her and kills her in the grocery store while she was waiting in line to checkout. She saw him and attempted to flee to her vehicle where her handgun was waiting, but her husband who was carrying illegally already had his weapon and stopped her before she could get the tool she needed to stop him. While processing her effects police find a copy of the restraining order against her murderous husband in her purse.

TexasRedneck wrote:CC will not negate LTC. What many forget is that LTC allows you to cross many state lines while carrying without risk of violating the law - but more importantly, it allows you to bypass the NICS check. THAT is the primary reason I'll continue to maintain my LTC, because I tend to acquire several guns every month or so....

Those fretting that criminals will carry....they already do. Those fretting that folks might take the law into their own hands....they already do. Those fretting that one bill might "win" over the other....so what? EITHER one is a good start, IMO. The more folks that carry, the more that will be raising hob with the businesses posting 30.06/30.07 - which is where the true issue lies, IMO - those that would deny us the right to carry the means to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

Is that you Shane McCrary?

I haven't seen where anyone said it would negate the LTC (Although in 2014/2015 OCT did call to "overturn the CHL law" and later clarified their position that they wished for it to remain, but be optional). There are additional legal benefits to possessing an LTC than what you mention such as protection from the Federal Gun Free School Zones act which unlicensed carry at the state level would not fix.

As you pointed out criminals already carry, and those on this forum are not fretting that unlicensed carry will allow them to carry, they are concerned that it will be more difficult for Law Enforcement to determine if someone is legal to carry or not. While this argument is being made, most people do not realize that when a LEO runs a person through NCIC this is determined rather quickly better than 98% of the time.

I honestly despise using the term constitutional carry to describe unlicensed carry. I despise using the term because it implies that the constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms rather than protects a previously existing right. Logically if the right is granted by the constitution, rather than protected by it, then the constitution can be used to restrict or even abolish that right. There are other view points on why the term constitutional carry is not ideal, however I can not echo them all. In fact one of the most articulate opinions as to why we should use a different term was written on a blog post. The author is Mr. Massad Ayoob and his article can be found here: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAy ... nal-carry/