TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:ok... lets make sure that we all understand a few simple things...

The second amendment says that the FEDERAL .gov cannot infringe our rights to keep and bear arms. it literally should be read as... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal Government."

the 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. so, the state is not specifically prohibited from infringing gun rights... according to Heller, they cannot ban guns entirely, but it has been long held that they can ban assault weapons and standard capacity magazines... This holds that states can infringe gun "rights".

the Texas constitution says: Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Texas allows the unregulated right to "keep" arms, but reserves the right by law to regulate the wearing, or "bearing" of arms.

In my educated opinion, anyone who insists that Texas requiring a CHL to carry a handgun infringes on their 2A rights is less than correct.

that being said... i personally kinda like that we have to be able to pass a shooting test, and a written test about the laws and deadly force statutes. I do not consider it to be invasive, or overly difficult. Personally, if i could wave a magic wand, i'd require every CHL holder to be able to recite Penal Code section 9 verbatum from memory. I also support having OC contingent on having a CHL... i don't want any nut out there able to carry without knowing the laws, or passing a simple shooting test.

flame on!

airbornerangerboogie wrote:This is a tough one, because while I support and defend the 2nd Amend, I also feel that there should be some kind of measure of Open Carry or CHL. There are clueless people out there that should not be allowed a pocket knife much less a gun. That being said, I think that anyone wanting to carry a weapon should at least have shown the community they are competent to do so.

Beiruty wrote:Why regulations are needed?
Proposition #1: No restrictions what so ever ==>
1) Criminals and convicted felons will request the right to exercise their constitutional rights to own and carry.
2) Mentally institutionalized "actors" will claim the same right.
Proposition #2: No training what so ever ==>
1) CHL actor will shoot innocent civilian when he intent was to stop a threat at 10 yrds. Why this happened? No required training and said actor did have any training whatsoever.
Proposition #3: No refresh course for recently introduced laws.
2) CHL actor acted on his belief that last year and obsolete laws are still in effect. he committed an offense and he wanted to claim ignorance which is a no excuse in the view of the law.

I do not understand why people are against "common sense" regulations when said regulations do enhance the value of CHL.

I think if we have a right we need to protect the right and enhance the value of said right.

flb_78 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

you happen to have a brother named Frankie?