TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Nonsense -- the right to travel (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by drivers licenses. There are all sorts of ways to travel that do not require licenses. (Air, bus, skateboard, bicycle, walking...)

By the very same logic, the right to self-defense (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by a CHL requirement. There would still be a lot of ways to defend yourself without the pistol. You could use your fists, a stick, a rock, etc.

Be very careful when declaring anything a privilege instead of a right, and always remember the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. They ar enot used vry much, but I see them becoming much more important to our daily lives in the very near future.

I agree, but we have to be careful about calling everything a right, also. Is anything that is not against the law a right? Do we have a right to own a home, go to the movies, drink water from a storm drain, put drugs into our body, kill an unborn fetus? Do we have a right to an education? Most of these things have to be determined whether or not they are rights outside of the direct words of the Constitution, but by means of the Constitutional text. The RKBA is enumerated by the 2nd amendment. It is a right. Almost all of our rights are being converted to privileges by allowing the government to license, tax and regulate them. Is there any right we have that does not suffer at least one of these? Once we start letting the government have these controls then it is no longer a right, it's a privilege. And that's what is happening to our RKBA.

marksiwel wrote:

O6nop wrote:

Well, we allready have a CHL Class, so its too late isnt it?

Only if we all give up.

In "Marksiwel America" you wouldn't get Most of your Rights until...

Don't use the word "America" in the description of that government. It scares me that we are already heading there.

it's more of a "Starship Troopers"

Also we are in North America.
Mexicans, Canadians, Venezuelans,ect are all "Americans"

Gotta admit you are right, your nation does sound more like Canada, Mexico, and even the "Americas" south of them. I stand corrected.

marksiwel wrote:

boomerang wrote:

marksiwel wrote:situational awareness, deescalation

I think the course requirements still include nonviolent dispute resolution. Talking to newcomers, it sounds like few instructors actually teach it. I did hear of one instructor who told students the answer to the TA/PAC question but otherwise taught nothing on that topic, but he had time to show videos!

Half the class should be that, I'm suprised the DPS hasnt made any videos on the subject

That class should be taught and passed in order to get out of the fifth grade and every year after that!

Well, we allready have a CHL Class, so its too late isnt it?

Only if we all give up.

In "Marksiwel America" you wouldn't get Most of your Rights until...

Don't use the word "America" in the description of that government. It scares me that we are already heading there.

marksiwel wrote:you need to know, or be taught how to use and clean your weapon before you get a CHL. I dont care if you feel that way or if its a law, I want it to happen.

I wish more CHL Instructors would offer different classes (not make it a law or anything)
1. CHL Beginners (people with little to no knowledge of weapons) Spend an extra hour cleaning, shooting ect
2. Chl Moderate People who know whats going on, take the class, shoot like normal
3. Chl Advanced, basically a Renewal Class, go over some tactical "drills" situational awareness, deescalation

I hope I'm not steering this off topic but I think it's relevant...
Please list the three classes you think should be taught for voting, freedom of speech, or what religion you should choose before exercising them. I feel those could be dangerous if not exercised properly.

OldSchool wrote:

O6nop wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

The "I feel..." argument is used most often by anti's and I'm surprised to see it used in this forum. Arguments like " 'I feel' that more guns on the street are going to lead to more crime" , " 'I feel' that if anybody wants to carry concealed, they have some criminal intent that they are hiding" , " 'I feel' there will be blood in the streets/on campus/at work/in hospitals/at the Capitol, if concealed carry/parking lot law/ passes", need more facts or logic before being used.

Just my opinion

Actually, "I feel" along with VoiceOfReason. The Founding Fathers, I believe, gave more than enough hint of their belief in "Rights = Responsibility". This is a topic independent from the licensing discussion, but rather is a discussion of Good Citizenship, as we used to be taught in grade school.

"I feel" that "I feel" is a statement of honesty, and should never be beaten back.

Just my opinion.

That's fine, they can honestly say they don't use facts or logic to argue legal matters. After all, "I feel" is nothing more than an opinion, and I agree shouldn't be beaten back. But it's not a basis for argument.
The Founding Fathers not only 'hinted', but insisted that rights are not given, they just are, and their task was to make those clear. The only responsibility they issued was to be aware of how to be free from tyranny. Therefore rights don't equate with responsibility.

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

The "I feel..." argument is used most often by anti's and I'm surprised to see it used in this forum. Arguments like " 'I feel' that more guns on the street are going to lead to more crime" , " 'I feel' that if anybody wants to carry concealed, they have some criminal intent that they are hiding" , " 'I feel' there will be blood in the streets/on campus/at work/in hospitals/at the Capitol, if concealed carry/parking lot law/ passes", need more facts or logic before being used.

Just my opinion

seamusTX wrote:The change that Charles is referring to is Texas ceasing to honor non-resident licenses, the way that Colorado has done.

- Jim

Then again, if having the Utah license rules stand, and violent crime is reduced, and no more crimes are evident than with Texas type rules, wouldn't it make sense to honor those permits? Wouldn't it get us closer to the 2A right the forefathers intended?
Just wondering.
We're judging a law based on something that hasn't happened yet....