open carry and chl limitation

[ldcarson]

My personal belief is 2aRTKBA is the only thing required to carry...whether that be open or concealed. However we are living in a very litigous society. Under the current system, if there is to be some minor changes I would support the following.

1. Open Carry for all non-felon and legal Texas Citizens.
2. No fault Conceal Carry under the current rules, but with no fault if it accidently shows or prints.
3. I would ask Texas to move the New law changes to an on-line class that can be done over the internet in the privacy of your home. You would enter your licences number and watch the 15 minute power point presentation and the system would log your ID as having done the course for the year.
4. training is up to each person and is what I would say falls more within the personal responsibility side of owning a weapon. Personally anyone who doesn't train how they fight is just plain stupid. A yearly training requirement is not always practical...I am an example of that. I work for the US government abroad, I don't get to come back here every year so I would not be able to meet this qualification.
5. I would like to see a second renewel of a CHL become a lifetime permit renewel for a flat 300-500 dollar fee. Done deal.
6. I would like to see the state of texas pass a resolution that basically says it will not enforce any federal regulation or law that does not uphold the consitution rights.
7. I would like the State of texas to pass a law making all CHL and Open Carry citizens who have had to use their weapons in self defence be exempt from frivolous wrongful death lawsuits.

Thats my two cents within the current structure.

[airbornerangerboogie]

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.

[mr surveyor]

a statement was made that punishment should be made greater for those that commit a crime while in possession of a firearm. That in itself tends to place firearms in a highly restrictive category. I personally think the idea that a thug that pistol whipped a convenience store clerk while robbing the store should be punished any more severely than the thug that beat the clerk at the neighboring store with a tire iron while performing his robbery is totally rediculous. But, I think the stupid "Hate Crime" laws are total political correctness garbage. Crime is crime. There have been countless murders in the last century with claw hammers. Why don't we require a license to purchase and own a claw hammer, and be sued if a burglar steals our claw hammer and uses it to commit an assault or murder?

O.K.... so I got way off track, but the idea of increased punishment for a crime while in possession of an "object" just seems totally idiotic to me.

surv

[anygunanywhere]

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.

So you are a second amendment supporter and defender with limitations. You accept reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws? Read the second amendment and concentrate on the last four words.

The last time I read it from beginning to end it said nothing at all about training requirements.

Anygunanywhere

[HGWC]

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.

[HGWC]

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.

[HGWC]

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.

[Frost]

If you can buy it you should be able to carry it however you want anywhere open to the public with the exception being secured areas with restricted access, metal detectors and armed guards.

[Morgan]

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.

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?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Philosophically, I believe that the Second Amendment is a near-absolute constitutional right. As such, I also believe that the only people who are legally prohibited from owning, possessing and carrying a firearm are those who have lost all of their civil rights through a felony conviction, or otherwise. As Stephen said, the Second Amendment's wording is unique (no infringement) and that is legally significant.

Realistically, we probably will never see a day when this will be the "law of the land." The Constitution is no longer viewed by elected officials or the public as the bulwark of freedom, but merely an inconvenience that can be overcome when the need arises. Years ago I heard the statement that, "if the Ten Commandments, Golden Rule and the Bill of Rights were put up for a popular vote, none would pass." Sadly, I believe this is true. As Stephen said, if my rights are to be preserved, I must stand up for the rights of others. However, too many in our country feel that is too high a price, so they will sacrifice their own rights so they may restrict others.

Freedom has a cost and that isn't measured only by the blood of those who died in defense of our country and our way of life. The cost also includes accepting that there is some risk to society and to individuals when we honor, respect and uphold all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If the Fourth Amendment is violated by government, or if the Fifth Amendment is invoked by a defendant, then it may result in a criminal going free. If the First Amendment is fully honored and enforced, then people we may not want as next door neighbors may buy some land, fence it, and live as a "cult" with values and practices we do not accept. But that is part of the cost of freedom.

That said, I live and operate in the real world subject to political reality that is as controlling as the laws of physics. The difference is the laws of physics aren't going to be changed, but the political landscape does change. It takes time, hard work, patience and dedication, but it can be done. It took years to pass the first CHL bill in 1995. This was a sea change event that reversed 124 years of Texas legislative history and jurisprudence and restored Texans' ability to defend themselves. To get it passed, we had to accept some provisions that weren't warranted from a safety standpoint, but we have removed many of those provisions over the years. Unlicensed car-carry was thought utterly impossible as recently as three years ago, but the excellent track record posted by Texas CHLs for over a decade had subtly brought about a major change in the political landscape.

Could Texas see a day when everyone who is not prohibited from possessing firearms is free to carry a handgun without a CHL? Absolutely, but it will take the same hard work, patience and dedication that made CHL possible. Right now, I'm focused on trying to prevent a Virginia Tech massacre in Texas by passing campus-carry, and trying to ensure that honest people are not disarmed and defenseless going to and from their places of employment, because of unwarranted and dangerous employer company policies. I also want to streamline the DPS processing of CHL applications so people can expect to receive their "plastic" in the time frame required by law. Heck, I have a whole list of things on my "Christmas List" and have drafted bills for every one of them! But that old nemesis "time" is one of the laws of physics that hasn't been repealed and there are only 140 days to do all of the State's business. Prioritizing isn't easy and it's certainly not fun, but it is a political reality.

I have visions of how I would like things to be, even though I know I won't see it in my lifetime. All I can do for the present is work on improving the status quo and praying that we will see continued progress and that my granddaughter will live in a country where all Constitutional rights are once again revered and Americans are willing to pay their share of freedom's cost.

Chas.

[AJSully421]

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!

[HGWC]

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.

[HGWC]

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.

[gmckinl]

Well said Mr. Cotton

[Charles L. Cotton]

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!

No flame here and I agree with some of what you are saying. As originally written, all of the Constitution applied solely to the federal government. However, the Fourteenth Amendment changed that and the Supreme Court has selectively applied the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution to the States. As yet, this has not been done with the Second Amendment and, in fact, the Cruickshank decision (1875) expressly said it applied only to the federal government. As noted by Justice Scalia in Heller however, the Cruickshank Court also held the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. This is a very clear signal that the Second Amendment will be "incorporated" to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

As I've stated in other posts, the only opinions concerning the scope of the Second Amendment that matter are a majority of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Right now, the majority have held that the Second Amendment is an individual right, that licensing is constitutional so long as it is not applied so as to ban handguns. So my comments about what I believe the Second Amendment means is just that, my opinion. With the right Court, my opinion could become the law of the land, or with the right Court, Sarah Brady's opinion could become the law of the land. I agree that, under current Supreme Court cases, requiring a CHL to carry a handgun in Texas does not violate the Second Amendment. I could foresee a day when the only licensing that would pass constitutional muster could be one that is similar to a voter registration requirement; i.e. checking to see that the licensee isn't a person who has lost their constitutional rights as with a felony conviction or otherwise. Even this analogy is faulty however, since a voter registration requirement isn't to confirm that a person hasn't lost his right to vote, it exists to further the greater constitutional goal of "one man, one vote."

I'm somewhat of a fanatic on education and training myself. That's why I put on the Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar free of charge. I also strongly encourage people to get the best training they can afford in terms of money and time. I even encourage my CHL students to do so, analogizing their CHL with my Private Pilot License when my first FAA Examiner said, "congratulations, you passed your check ride and here is your temporary license. Remember, this is really just a license to learn, so please don't kill anyone while you are doing it!" I also agree that I would prefer not to be standing downrange of some incompetent shooter trying to shoot a BG. But I cannot in good faith support a proficiency or knowledge requirement to exercise a constitutional right. No where else is such a constitutional right subject to an education and training requirement. Right now we have a training requirement and as we agree, there is no Supreme Court decision that makes this training requirement unconstitutional.

Chas.