TexasCHLforum.com

Morgan wrote: EXCUSE ME? I think I understand what you're saying here... but it seems to be based on your incorrect assumption that I believe that "get the proper understanding of the law to be allowed to carry a gun" be some kind of mandate. I suppose my use of "allowed" might lead you there, and that was unintentional. I'm not sure exactly how else to put it. Perhaps "not be disallowed" would be better.

All I really meant was that I personally would PREFER it if people who do NOT wish to gain an understanding of the law and do NOT wish to gain basic training would not carry.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. There are so many "gun rights supporters" that prefer that only the "right" people are allowed that it's sometimes difficult to tell. My apologies.

Frankly I prefer that the state just not pass unconstitutional, onerous and complicated laws. That minimizes the training requirement substantially, and then I prefer that people just obey the common sense laws we have left. I presume citizens understand that irresponsible handling of a gun, threatening people with it, or murdering someone with it is against the law. The same laws govern use of a crowbar, knife, or even brute force. We trust citizens to understand these same laws except when they possess a firearm, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, I'm more than happy that people are able and willing to get what ever training they feel is necessary.

mr surveyor wrote:I suppose I am in the minority, but, regardless of what I would like (in a perfect world), I can forsee many, many more private establishments posting once they see a few open carries. As it is now, concealed handguns are generally "out of sight-out of mind". When they are in plain open view, then it becomes a matter of the business owner trying to please the majority of the customers. I'd bet there would be enough skittish owners, or customers complaining, to triple the number of off limits establishments within one year of OC legislation. Unless other legislation is submitted (concurrently with passage of OC) that takes away the rights of business or other private property owners to regulate activities on their property, there will likely be very few places we would be allowed to carry.

I would welcome OC, and if initiated I would "remove my jacket at the resturant" if allowed to carry there at all.

Still mulling over all the possibilities.


surv

I can't predict what will happen in Texas. My understanding is that this hasn't happened in other states.

Morgan wrote: I'm sorry, I think you got the impression that I feel that the restriction of these people is good. I do not. I didn't trim your quote enough. I was merely arguing that I think it's more people that your statement seems to indicate.

I'd really like to know how many people fail all the requirements outside of the NICS. Except for the training, it's the primary differentiator between buying the gun and getting a CHL. Then look at the cost differential, the burden, the delays, etc as compared to the benefit, and that's assuming that anyone can make a case at all that there is a benefit.

First, no, I don't have ANY idea how many people have their applications denied due to non NICS issues. But I DO know that there are plenty of people who do NOT APPLY because they see the list of exclusion factors and say, "I won't qualify."

I agree completely. Even the training class keeps people from exercising their rights, which of course is the only purpose of these laws. We don't need the mandated training. They could greatly simplify the firearm possession laws, produce a small handbook (not the 73 page one they have now) and offer a short test mostly on the penal code. That would take $100+ off the cost of getting the CHL. You go to the DPS office. Take the test. Pass the NICS background check. That probably takes another $100 off the cost. Then you walk out with the license, eliminating months of delay and cost. The training is a bad compromise, but it's not as bad as the compromises that were made for all the bureaucratic nonsense that happens afterwords.

One person for all of Harris county spending ten or fifteen minutes per application can't be doing anything of real value for the citizens of Texas. I figure that's about all the time she has to address all of this other nonsense beyond the NICS check.

I'm all for every honest, law abiding general citizen who has no illegal intentions who wishes to get the proper understanding of the law and some basic training to be allowed to carry a gun. The more the merrier.

Then of course you don't support the 2nd and fourteenth amendments that assure us we have no such obligations to the state of Texas. The government can never allow us to exercise our rights. They have no such power. They can only prevent us from it.

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."

Fortunately, we also have the fourteenth amendment and Article 3 section 2 that grants the federal government the power to interpret and enforce it.

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.

Wearing does not equal bearing, and that's where they run afoul of both our state and federal constitutions.

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.

It's not the CHL laws, but the law prohibiting carry without submitting to the onerous requirements of CHL that principally infringe up on our rights both on the state and federal levels.

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.

In other words, as a citizen, we don't really have a right to keep and bear arms at all. We should have to individually demonstrate that we're worthy of those rights as decided by the whim of every legislative session.

Morgan wrote:Actually, I'd posit that it's at least statistically more significant that you suggest... People who have student loan issues, owe child support or back taxes... none of these impact NICS, but there are a LOT of people who have those... SO that's a lot of people who can pass a NICS that can't obtain a CHL.

How many is a lot? That's the question, and it's an important question. More importantly, what evidence is there that any crime is prevented by keeping this subset of people from wearing firearms in public? On the other hand, these secondary requirements, outside of the NICS, present an enormous burden to the rest of the population.

YellowTJ wrote:I've thought it over and I've just come to think of it like this... that CHL is my paperwork to say... "hey cop I'm a good guy, I have a gun but please don't treat me like the street thug carrying"

Yet, if you're stopped in a traffic stop, you're flagged as being a man with a gun that requires extra caution. You're mandated to provide additional identification, and the next question out of the cop's mouth will be do you have any firearms, for his safety. He may stop dozens of other drivers that may legally or illegally possess handguns, but he'll only be concerned enough for his safety to question CHL holders.

I think the CHL gives trackable stats that normal citizens can carry guns daily and not use them to break laws or harm others. I find it more like I'm paying for TX to keep records of us good gun carrying citizens and how keeping us around is a positive thing.

You put a lot of faith in the continuity of our democratic society. In twenty years, imagine for a moment that our society collapses and a despot comes to power. As CHL holders, our names get flagged as gun owners on every police car computer. That could be mighty useful to our new leader.

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.

The problem with this mentality is deciding who gets to define and regulate clueless. Make sure you choose well.

Morgan wrote:Do you favor opening the restriction to basically allow anyone who can PURCHASE a handgun to be able to obtain a CHL? Further, if you believe that, do you go a step further and believe that anyone who can purchase and own a handgun should be allowed to concealed carry without a permit?

If I can purchase a handgun, there's absolutely no law that can prevent me from carrying the handgun in public and using it in a crime. It gives the police the power to confiscate handguns off people in public possession without a CHL, but I would bet that in most of those confiscations the firearm possession was already illegal for other reasons. On the other hand, the impact on ordinary law abiding citizens wanting to carry concealed, when open carry is strictly prohibited, is huge.

Second, out of all the CHL applications, what percentage of people can pass the NICS check but then fail to meet all of the other CHL requirements? It's only the delta we're talking about in this thread, and I bet it's a tiny tiny fraction. How much crime does that prevent compared to substantially more armed citizens out and about in public?

Third, there are no laws that can prevent me from obtaining a handgun illegally and using it in a crime. Even if there were, that would just make a criminal more confident in committing his crimes without getting shot dead.

Second... Open carry. Do you support the initiative to make open carry legal?

Of course. Whether anyone ever does, it's our right. Texas voters passed an amendment to our state constitution in 1876 to limit the legislature infringing keep and bear and to repeal the 1871 ban on public firearm possession. The 1871 law disarmed and oppressed the people and set up a police state that ended only with the armed removal of the Governor from the state capital in 1873. Yet the law still exists. It's a wrong that still needs to be corrected.