TexasCHLforum.com

gdanaher wrote:Maybe it is time to commission someone in your office to formulate the needed language (I'd wager it is already done though).

Chas.

gdanaher wrote:It appears that your elected officials in Austin have chosen to write state legislation which distinguishes the rights of sworn peace officers from those who hold concealed handgun licenses, or visa versa. There must somehow be some reason for this, and given their high intellect, wisdom, and knowledge, they must have done this for good cause. If that reasoning doesn't work, remember that these laws were created and later reviewed by Republican legislatures and Republican governors. Does anyone think that CHL holders would have greater flexibility had these legislatures been predominantly Democratic?

Well, I happen to know a little bit about how SB60 was passed in 1995 and your rationale is faulty. There was no comparison between LEO's and then-new CHL holders. There was no discussion of the "rights" (I think you mean authority) of LEO's and absolutely no discussion about where a CHL can carry in relation to where a LEO can carry.

The simple fact is this, we had to accept absolutely unnecessary provisions in SB60 to get it past the 100+ years of prejudice against citizens carrying self-defense handguns. We had to get past the demagoguery of certain self-proclaimed "leaders" in the Texas Legislature. In virtually every legislative session since 1995, we have either repealed or modified many of those unnecessary provisions and added new ones to expand the ability of CHL's to carry and lessen the authority of governmental agencies and entities to restrict that ability.

You too paint with too broad a brush when you imply that the laws pertaining to CHL were "later reviewed by Republican legislatures and Republican governors." There's no review of existing laws! That would be an impossible task. Nothing is "reviewed" until we submit bills as we have done every single legislative session. Since I'm sure you will inquire why we haven't sought to move CHL's from TPC §46.15(b) to 46.15(a), I'll save some time. It hasn't been a priority and we had too many other things to do. In my view, now is the time to move on this change because it will/should be an integral part of a new strategy to pass so-called "campus carry."

Overall, your approach seems to be "show me why you should be able to carry a handgun in ____________." I believe the proper question to be "show me a good reason why CHL's should not be able to carry a handgun in _____________."

Chas.

gdanaher wrote:If the state gave to chl holders the same rights to arrest and other police powers as leo's, then I would agree. In that absence, chl is a few steps behind a leo, does not have to answer to the same standard, and hence should not have the same flexibility.

The CHL statute is about self-defense and defense of innocent 3rd persons and having arrest authority is irrelevant. There is no rational basis for excluding CHL's from locations into which a LEO can carry a handgun. These is especially true since latest crime statistics (2009) show CHL's are 15 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population over age 20. LEO's are only 3 times less likely, but those stats are about four years older than the CHL stats.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:

gdanaher wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:Some people believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, and only the police and military should be allowed to carry in certain places. There's a word for those people but it's against forum rules to say it out loud.

There are reasons why not everyone can legally buy a gun from a dealer. Not everyone needs a gun or should be able to buy one: A lot of convicted felons can tend to be dangerous even without a gun, but it can tip the boat, and crossobows just aren't that handy to carry. Some people are not mentally prepared, especially if they are off their meds, and then there is the occasional idiot that makes headlines. So yes, some of us think that some folk's rights to carry SHOULD be infringed, because for the rest of us, those few are dangerous.

Just because someone is a past felon does not remove their right to defend themselves. There are a few ex-felons I know whom I would trust with a firearm much more than most of the elected officials ruling us now.

Anygunanywhere

It doesn't remove their right to defend themselves, but it does prohibit them from possessing one of the tools of self-defense. If someone was convicted of writing a felony hot check, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. If it was murder, rape, aggravated robbery, then they won't be invited to my house for dinner. You paint with too broad a brush. The day will never come that either the U.S. Congress, Texas Legislature, or the general public will accept restoring firearms rights to every single felon released from prison or who completes probation. Time would be better spent focusing on restoration of firearms rights for persons convicted of non-violent crimes.

Chas.

gringo pistolero wrote:

gdanaher wrote:So, are you saying you have no problem with a convicted bank robber buying and carrying a gun into a bank because he is exercising his constitutional right?

That's your argument why law abiding citizens who have a CHL shouldn't be able to carry the same places off duty cops can? Because you think we're the same as convicted bank robbers.

I only have one answer that doesn't violate forum rules and it's clicking this link. [Moderator's note: The link was removed because it was an underhanded trick to make Members think it was a link to a thread. Instead, it was a link that would have added another Member to your "Foes List" and you would not have seen that Member's posts. This is the first time a Member has ever done something like this, but from now on, it will be automatic banning.]

Don't every pull this stunt again! For those who may have thought this was a link to a thread, as did I, this was a link to add another Member to your "Foe List."

I don't appreciate this one little bit.

Chas.