TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:Among those who oppose unlicensed carry, I think the focus is more often not on the person carrying, but on the people around him not carrying, especially in urban areas. Back when the 2nd was written, we didn't have people living in paper-walled apartments, crowded malls and sporting events, massive delapidated inner cities, etc. 80+% of the population was rural. The perception on the part of many is that there enough people out there who don't know how to handle and/or use a gun safely that, if allowed to carry freely, would present a significant danger to the population at large. Thus, we have LTCs.

girlgun.JPG

Theres are a lot of things different from the time the Constitution was ratified until present day.
But no gun restrictive law was ever written because of fear of people not being properly trained with firearms. They have all been written in response to criminal acts involving firearms. Which is why gun control laws are so insidious. They presume that the type of firearm, a person can access, will cause criminal behavior.
This flies in the face of not only the second amendment, but the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If I somehow had access to nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean I would use them against anyone. But that is exactly the reasoning behind gun laws.
There is a presumption on the part of left wing law makers, and unfortunately some right wing ones as well, just look at Nixon's record, that the general public cannot be trusted, and that the people must first prove their worthiness to keep and bear arms.

s3779m wrote:Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

I think the majority of members here are LTC holders. The infuriating issue for most of us, is the fact that having to get an LTC to be able to carry "legally" flies in the face of the Second Amendment. The words "shall not be infringed" are hollow, when a government requires some type of licensing to exercise a right. The second amendment is very clear, and concise, as it should be. But through the years, we have allowed our elected officials, to pass laws, that are in direct conflict. As of now, in our State, the only way to be able to carry, outside of our homes, and automobiles, is to be given "permission"

The other issue, being debated, is whether or not, we should be required to pass a competency test, to exercise the right. The founding fathers, saw no reason to make that a condition to the amendment, and there are no such conditions, on any other Constitutional right.

tommyg wrote:While I'm about as pro gun as anyone can get, I think that to carry a person should have
to at least demonstrate that He/She has a basic understanding of how to use a gun.

There are people out there that do not know how to load and fire. Licenses are needed classes
and firing tests are still needed

When I took my class and firing test I was in a special class for senior citizens and military. I was the
only senior citizen in the class. The others were Military police that wanted to carry off duty.
I did as well as the rest of them. No problem I did not mind taking the test and I had a good time taking it

tommyg, while I understand your position, the fact remains, that the right to keep and bear arms, has no such restriction (Constitutionally) Just as none of the other Constitutional rights, requires, that person demonstrate proficiency, before exercising that right. It has nothing to do with being "pro gun" or "anti gun"
The reason we have any gun control laws at all, is because those who were elected into power, decided, that because some acted irresponsibly with firearms, they were subject to control, despite a very clear and concise Constitutional Amendment forbidding the practice.

truckster wrote:I didn't read the entire thread but my simpleton take on the whole thing is this.

Just because someone took a class for something doesn't make them more competent on the subject. I know some complete imbeciles with 4 year degrees from good schools and I'm sure some of you know some dummies who have completed the required course for an LTC that have no business even owning a firearm

A Constitutional right, is a right, despite training, or competency. No one has to have a degree in journalism, or pass a writing test to exercise their free speech, they do not need a degree in Theology to go to the church of their choice. There is no competency test to be able to be allowed to be free from self incrimination.
For some reason people belive that the 2A is different from the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights, and requires permission to exercise it.

Pariah3j wrote:

rotor wrote:

jkurtz wrote:For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

I don't think any reasonable person is objecting to the idea that some level of training/teaching needs to be obtained or sought out. The argument is against government mandated training. You wanted to know how to weld, so you took the class - were you required by the state to take that class before you could pick up and operate the welding machine ? That's the difference.

It scares me that we have a topic where someone needs to be convinced that constitutional carry is a good thing. This is probably one of the most pro 2A, gun rights friendly places, and if someone on this forum needs to be 'convinced' about Const. carry then we're screwed. Because on the un-gun friendly side we have groups like the "Mothers who demand stupid stuff" and other anti groups that hate guns because they make them feel bad, out of pure ignorance, or some other nonsensical reason. The left has for 100 years been nudging and framing the conversation, and sadly a whole lot of people have started to buy into their madness.

I have made it my mission to help teach my kids, at least basic gun safety, operation etc. I have worked with my son's Boy Scout troop through rifle, and shotgun instruction. (and before that with the cub scouts with BB guns) I have taught my wife how to shoot a handgun, she had shot some before but no actual training.
I believe that like anything with which you wish to become proficient, shooting must be learned. However, I don't think that the government should have any say so, in mandating training for a Constitutional 2A right, any more that they mandate training for exercising any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I highly recommend that anyone wanting to purchase, and carry a fire arm, obtain some training, but I would recommend the same for someone wanting to use carpentry tools. While almost anyone can pick up a hammer and drive a nail, there is a way to do it safely. JMHO

I fully agree with Charles,
While we may want "Constitutional" or "unrestricted" carry in Texas, there is still not enough support in the Legislature for such a measure. Charles, has a much better idea of the pulse of the law makers than I do, but the ones I have spoken with have listed the myriad of problems even among their own constituents, with getting it introduced.
One of the first things they have said to me, is that even among conservatives, and conservative gun owners, there is still a lot of fear that "some idiot" will do something to make gun owners look bad, which will start to reverse the progress we have made in the past 20+ years, secondly, there is still the old school way of thinking even among conservative, native Texans, due to years of being indoctrinated that way, that rifles and shotguns for hunting are fine, but handguns are only for killing people. Therefore they are, even after years of evidence to change their minds, still of the mind set that only cops and criminals carry handguns.

These are the people that go to polls, and vote, so they do have to respect and defend the positions of folks like this.

Thirdly, and this is only my observations, with the large influx of people from other states, mostly left leaning, the issues we hold dear, are not even on their radar, so they will not automatically vote for representatives who try to protect or promote 2A rights. We must be vigilant to not lose any ground, but we must also understand that change takes time, and while we are currently riding a tide of conservative values, Texas has not always swung that way, and is very close to having the tide go back out very quickly.

Beiruty wrote:A better way to clear the path to constitutional carry, is to teach basic gun safety and marksmanship AND 4-hrs LTC course at the HS school level. Then, everyone one who went to the HS would be eligible to have an LTC or carry under the constitutional carry.

That is a good idea, but with the liberalism in public schools, I don't ever see that as a viable option. Secondly it would only affect and impact young people.

My thought process is that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right. And until someone shows that they are not capable of exercising that right responsibly, then there should be no "requirement" met.

That being said, I fully agree with Charles in that this will not pass, in Texas, in the near future. I don't see this bill even making it to Committee, but it does open the door for fewer restrictions on LTC holders. Along with the fact that open carry, and campus carry, has resulted in exactly the number of problems we predicted, resistance to more freedoms, will have a much quieter voice, and no matter how much "hidden and anecdotal" evidence the left tries to present, the ones listening to those voices, will grow harder of hearing. JMHO