How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

[KD5NRH]

This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns).

Too much: .05 is two beers for a 160lb person. I wouldn't want somebody juggling loaded guns after a 6-pack, but saying that you can't leave your home defense gun out while having two drinks with dinner is going a bit too far.

I think I've discussed the idiocy of lowering the DUI limit to .08 rather than tougher punishment for the real drunk drivers elsewhere on the board, so I won't drift this thread on that.

[blue]

Make it a FELONY AND VERY STIFF FINE AND JAIL TIME to Collect, Possess, or Distribute ANY CHL information. (with he ONLY exception DPS)

This is in view of the state fair recent policy. They Really DO NOT have a legit reason to collect ANY information, PERIOD.

We are the ones paying for a 'Right' and the DPS itself is legally not allowed to give out CHL Information.

ALL others should be restricted also AND Severely punished as a criminal offense for attempts to collect, possess, or distribute ANY CHL information.

This should apply to ANY individual or group or company.
-------------------
Also delete all information off of the CHL license itself leaving ONLY Name, Photo, CHL Number. A LEO will run it to verify it is legit if they need to. Others do not need that information. (If it's not there, then its also not available to others)

------
------

-Definately need much lower Fees and costs overall.
-Testing at the range should be REDUCED -Not much chance of a 50 round encounter!
(If others are 'unsafe' etc. then they can seek added training and retest.)
-Cut class hours - its just to long.
-Drop the Semiauto/Revolver classification out completely- NOT needed at all!

-MANDATORY LICENSE DELIVERED IN 30 DAYS. With Penaltys PER DAY for late. If they cannot figure out in 30 days who is a bad guy, THEN IT CERTAINLY IS NOT OUR FAULT! (FREE after 30 days and $100/day)(and NO stalling for re prints etc. allowed)

By now we as a group have proven ourselves for many years, and with the dangers of terrorism, crime, etc. increasing, it should be a priority to get as many new CHLers as we can. Less hoops and costs will help greatly. This also makes our voice louder in Austin which helps us all.

----
Off Soapbox- Good Nite!
Blue
-

[chabouk]

6. Replace 51% rule with a .05% rule. Legal for CHL to carry anywhere alcohol is sold, for on-premises consumption or otherwise (including sporting events, ballparks, stadiums, race tracks etc). ANY CHL found intoxicated above a .05% blood-alcohol level while carrying is charged and if convicted subject to same punishment as a second DWI offense (currently Class A misdemeanor), CHL is revoked for a minimum of 5 years. This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns). ... current DWI standard is still 0.08%, correct? this is why I chose a more stringent 0.05% standard for "CCWI"

No.

Criminal charges should always be based on actions, not circumstances. What's the concern with intoxication? Isn't it that someone who is drinking might use a gun when he otherwise wouldn't?

Well, that use is either justified, or it isn't. The justification doesn't depend on blood alcohol content. Plenty of sober people do stupid things with guns or other weapons (like the Marine in Tampa Bay who bludgeoned a Greek Orthodox priest with a tire iron while telling 911 he had "captured a terrorist").

Someone who is staggering drunk is just as justified in using deadly force as someone who has never touched a drop, if the circumstances justify their actions.

I sometimes have a few beers at home, never in public. That's just my personal standard. If I lock up all my guns before cracking the first brewskie, I won't forget the combination or where the key is even if I get completely hammered (not that I do). Those guns are just as available to me unloaded in the safe as they are loaded on my hip. If I were inclined to do stupid things with guns, neither the gun's location or my BAC would make a difference.

[mr.72]

what's with all of the "trade one infringement for another" or "make this infringement worse while making this other one less".

The powers of government are conferred from the people. That means whatever power the government has, the people have. There is no power the government has which is higher than that of the people. This is a basic principle upon which this country is founded. So a police officer having the power to open-carry a gun anywhere is a power conferred by the people, and implicitly is a power which is held also by the people. A soldier having the power to carry a select-fire M16 is a power granted by the people, without the exclusion of the people who grant it. All of these CHL laws and the entire concept of having to get a license to do something for which we have a natural right, infringement of which is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, is all 100% infringement.

There is no age restriction in the 2A. There is no range qualification. None of that. The whole set of CHL laws needs to be completely repealed and we need to amend the TX Constitution. This whole debate about intensifying or rearranging the state of infringement is just getting sort-of in bed with the antis, disarming ourselves willfully of our resolve, which will be followed by our willful disarmament of our arms.

[marksiwel]

what's with all of the "trade one infringement for another" or "make this infringement worse while making this other one less".

The powers of government are conferred from the people. That means whatever power the government has, the people have. There is no power the government has which is higher than that of the people. This is a basic principle upon which this country is founded. So a police officer having the power to open-carry a gun anywhere is a power conferred by the people, and implicitly is a power which is held also by the people. A soldier having the power to carry a select-fire M16 is a power granted by the people, without the exclusion of the people who grant it. All of these CHL laws and the entire concept of having to get a license to do something for which we have a natural right, infringement of which is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, is all 100% infringement.

There is no age restriction in the 2A. There is no range qualification. None of that. The whole set of CHL laws needs to be completely repealed and we need to amend the TX Constitution. This whole debate about intensifying or rearranging the state of infringement is just getting sort-of in bed with the antis, disarming ourselves willfully of our resolve, which will be followed by our willful disarmament of our arms.

Well if you consider the "Militia" part of the 2A that would be people of a certain age (17-55?).
But if you also include "The People" we dont give Children the same rights as adults.
You could argue there is an age limit.

[Dragonfighter]

Miltias historically had children as young as 15 in the revolutionary period. Younger still in some farming communities. I had to prove myself capable with a BB gun and then was allowed to go out with a single shot .410, then a 22 bolt action repeating rifle and finally a .22 sidearm by the time I was 16 and an avid snake collector. I was periodically checked upon by LEO's but other than asking what I was up to, none gave me a second thought nor seemed the least bit worried about the pistol on my hip, or the rifle in my hand.

I have trained and would trust either of my kids, the youngest is 13, with any weapon in the house. Albeit, the 13 year old is more avid than the older one.

Age limits (for bearing arms) should be left as a judgment call by the parents, and if that judgment is found in error, the parents are the ones that bear that responsibility. The access to minors law should have an accidental access clause in it, as it reads now I could potentially be given a good deal of grief for my kids' knowing where the defense weapons are...better yet, rescind it all together.

[Count]

Cost the same as driver license.

No class for renewals, like a driver license renewal.

No finger prints for renewal or only thumb print, like a driver license.

Same carry rules as off duty cops.

[C-dub]

Wow! There's a lot of really good ideas here. Some would be easier to get than others and some would be almost impossible.

BTW 300,000 CHL's at $140 comes out to $42M, give or take a few hundred thousand for reduced rates. I have a difficult time believing that it costs this much money to run this program.

[mr.72]

BTW 300,000 CHL's at $140 comes out to $42M

You are onto something there.

They will never repeal it because that's $42M in taxpayer money that will not go to the state any longer.

[C-dub]

And that's roughly $42M every 4-5 years with little to no risk for the state. It's a win-win situation for the state. Many BGs never see the light of day again and the state usually doesn't have to do anything except no-bill the victim and, to my limited knowledge, nobody has sued the state for an individual's actions that had a CHL.

[A-R]

This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns).

Too much: .05 is two beers for a 160lb person. I wouldn't want somebody juggling loaded guns after a 6-pack, but saying that you can't leave your home defense gun out while having two drinks with dinner is going a bit too far.

I think I've discussed the idiocy of lowering the DUI limit to .08 rather than tougher punishment for the real drunk drivers elsewhere on the board, so I won't drift this thread on that.

6. Replace 51% rule with a .05% rule. Legal for CHL to carry anywhere alcohol is sold, for on-premises consumption or otherwise (including sporting events, ballparks, stadiums, race tracks etc). ANY CHL found intoxicated above a .05% blood-alcohol level while carrying is charged and if convicted subject to same punishment as a second DWI offense (currently Class A misdemeanor), CHL is revoked for a minimum of 5 years. This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns). ... current DWI standard is still 0.08%, correct? this is why I chose a more stringent 0.05% standard for "CCWI"

No.

Criminal charges should always be based on actions, not circumstances. What's the concern with intoxication? Isn't it that someone who is drinking might use a gun when he otherwise wouldn't?

Well, that use is either justified, or it isn't. The justification doesn't depend on blood alcohol content. Plenty of sober people do stupid things with guns or other weapons (like the Marine in Tampa Bay who bludgeoned a Greek Orthodox priest with a tire iron while telling 911 he had "captured a terrorist").

Someone who is staggering drunk is just as justified in using deadly force as someone who has never touched a drop, if the circumstances justify their actions.

I sometimes have a few beers at home, never in public. That's just my personal standard. If I lock up all my guns before cracking the first brewskie, I won't forget the combination or where the key is even if I get completely hammered (not that I do). Those guns are just as available to me unloaded in the safe as they are loaded on my hip. If I were inclined to do stupid things with guns, neither the gun's location or my BAC would make a difference.

Well, I happen to agree for the most part with current drunk driving laws. Should it be .10% instead of .08%? Probably, but now we get into the problem of having to change a state law that will in effect cause the state to lose highway money (which we're already WELL SHORT what we need) from the Feds. Messed up situation, I agree. But that has more to do with over-reaching by the Feds than anything.

This idea of "actions" vs. "circumstances" is just word spin. The ACTION one takes in violation of drunk driving laws is to get drunk and then drive. The ACTION one would take to violate my hypothetical "Concealed Carry While Intoxicated" law is getting drunk while carry a loaded firearm. Both scenarios - DWI and "CCWI" are dangerous enough that to only punish someone AFTER they've injured others (the "action" I can only assume you're referring to above) is not sufficient.

To say a person's BAC makes no difference whether they do something stupid with a gun (or a car) is just naive. And while I agree, fundamentally, that drunk people have just as much right to self defense as sober people, they DO NOT have just as much ABILITY. Intoxication greatly impairs fine motor skills and basic reasoning - some very important aspects of self defense. So, even if you're "justified" in shooting an attacker while you're drunk, good luck explaining that situation successfully to a judge/jury in both criminal AND civil court.

Alcohol and guns simply don't mix folks. Period. Under my hypothetical law, if you wan to get drunk but want to maintain usable safety/self defense capabilities, then make sure you bring a long a CHL buddy as designated driver AND designated CHL for the night. As it stands right now, drinking or not, you have no permission to carry in a 51% establishment. This is the problem I want corrected. If I'm in a bar, but NOT DRINKING, I should have the same right to carry a gun for self defense as I do in any other public place.

Could this theoretical 0.05% "CCWI" limit be higher? Sure. But my reasoning behind my suggestion was to set some sort of verifiable quantitative measurement, which IMHO should be a higher standard (lower BAC threshold) than drinking and driving. As it stands now, you could very well be arrested for being intoxicated while carrying after two drinks over dinner because a police offers says you were. There is no objective basis for it. Don't think it can happen in your home? What if you get mad at your spouse or child, a big fight ensues, neighbors call police who roll up to your house on suspicion of domestic violence. You're carrying a gun in your CCW holster and you've had a few beers. You're still visibly upset from the argument and not at your most coherent best. Cop writes it up as domestic abuse with some special circumstances of intoxication and possessing a loaded firearm. Better have a good lawyer.

[A-R]

what's with all of the "trade one infringement for another" or "make this infringement worse while making this other one less".

The powers of government are conferred from the people. That means whatever power the government has, the people have. There is no power the government has which is higher than that of the people. This is a basic principle upon which this country is founded. So a police officer having the power to open-carry a gun anywhere is a power conferred by the people, and implicitly is a power which is held also by the people. A soldier having the power to carry a select-fire M16 is a power granted by the people, without the exclusion of the people who grant it. All of these CHL laws and the entire concept of having to get a license to do something for which we have a natural right, infringement of which is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, is all 100% infringement.

There is no age restriction in the 2A. There is no range qualification. None of that. The whole set of CHL laws needs to be completely repealed and we need to amend the TX Constitution. This whole debate about intensifying or rearranging the state of infringement is just getting sort-of in bed with the antis, disarming ourselves willfully of our resolve, which will be followed by our willful disarmament of our arms.

Mr. 72, I appreciate and admire your steadfast devotion to unimpeded RKBA under 2A. In a perfectly idealistic world I'd love to see your vision become reality. But we (pro-RKBA) are not a 100% majority and there is a sizeable and vocal anti-RKBA crowd against us as we all know. I'm not for compromising for compromising's sake, nor always giving up something in order to get something. But there are political realities to deal with. And we have to pick and choose our battles. Some facets of RKBA as specfically relates to Texas CHL are more important to me than others. What's important to me are school carry, polling place/court carry, bar carry, parking lot carry, placing liability for my personal safety on anyone who posts a 30.06. And if I have to give a little bit (lose the battle) to gain a lot (win the war), I'm willing to do so up to a point. If I can regain the rights that are important to me, and all I have to do is pay some money for a license, shoot 50 rounds to prove my proficiency, and conceal my firearm while I carry, I'm OK with that for now. The world moves best incrementally. IMHO YMMV

[mr.72]

And if I have to give a little bit (lose the battle) to gain a lot (win the war), I'm willing to do so up to a point.

The problem is, we have already conceded the war, and we are now content to forget the irresistible irony: the very right which we have willingly given up is the one that was put in place to prevent the government from disregarding our other rights.

If I can regain the rights that are important to me, and all I have to do is pay some money for a license, shoot 50 rounds to prove my proficiency, and conceal my firearm while I carry, I'm OK with that for now. The world moves best incrementally. IMHO YMMV

This is like a wrongly-convicted man serving a life sentence in prison, saying "I am giving up on my appeal and restoration of my freedom, because at least I can get a second helping of dessert every once in a while".

It's institutional sleight of hand. They caress you with the hand you can see while they are stabbing you with the one you can't see. This is how we got here.

There was a day when you could walk into any hardware store or department store and buy a gun equivalent to modern (for the day) military arms straight across the counter with no paperwork and no government interference. There was a time in this country when corrupt politicians would fully expect that they would face a brutal, ferocious armed uprising if they tried to confiscate guns of free men. But now we are happily attached to the government's leash, jumping through hoops like a trick pony. We can engage in the theater of gun ownership, so politicians can pretend like they support rights because, see, look how many people have guns, and how great and legal and organized and documented and under the government's heel the whole operation is. This is not freedom. It is not freedom when they expect to force you to buy health insurance or face fines or jail time and we don't arm up and march in the streets demanding the heads of these tyrants. This is not the country whose forefathers drafted the Bill of Rights. Our rulers do not regard our rights as anything sacred, but only a nostalgic relic of a bygone era. This is not the country that patriots gave their lives and risked everything for 200-some years ago. This is a lot more like the countries we pat ourselves on the back for "liberating", but it's just transferring from a foolish and obvious tyranny to a new, modernized, easy to swallow tyranny that Americans who think they believe in freedom will support.

The funny thing is that we, Texans, think that we are somehow different. Even our governor makes veiled references to that-which-cannot-be-spoken. We have hyped up heroes who fought for Texas independence and were "king(s) of the wild frontier". This is no wild frontier and these heroes along with American patriots of the American Revolution have transcended from history to mythology, because we can no longer even imagine anyone who would be willing to die to preserve these freedoms. Yeah, we talk about how our men and women are going overseas to fight for "freedom" but the enemies who are successfully assaulting America are not in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's just the distraction. The enemies of American freedom have their names listed on the ballot and the rest are casting the votes. We are so anesthetized by our "security" that we cannot recognize freedom anymore, and we couldn't cope with it if we had it.

We won't fight for our freedoms because we are too afraid we are going to lose one of the floating ashes of our former liberty that we won't dare challenge and demand that our rights be recognized. This is not about restoring our rights. We have these rights, whether they are recognized or not.

If they come to confiscate your guns, are you going to risk your life to defend your right to keep them? Or are you going to hand them over? I think most of us are going to hand them over. And they know it. So we have already given up. They are taking their victory lap over and over, and we are begging to ride along.

They don't make an emoticon for the way I feel about this.

[A-R]

If they come to confiscate your guns, are you going to risk your life to defend your right to keep them?

Yes.


just so happens that is where I personally draw the line and my days of compromising end

[chabouk]

Alcohol and guns simply don't mix folks. Period. Under my hypothetical law, if you wan to get drunk but want to maintain usable safety/self defense capabilities, then make sure you bring a long a CHL buddy as designated driver AND designated CHL for the night. As it stands right now, drinking or not, you have no permission to carry in a 51% establishment. This is the problem I want corrected. If I'm in a bar, but NOT DRINKING, I should have the same right to carry a gun for self defense as I do in any other public place.

Could this theoretical 0.05% "CCWI" limit be higher? Sure. But my reasoning behind my suggestion was to set some sort of verifiable quantitative measurement, which IMHO should be a higher standard (lower BAC threshold) than drinking and driving. As it stands now, you could very well be arrested for being intoxicated while carrying after two drinks over dinner because a police offers says you were. There is no objective basis for it. Don't think it can happen in your home? What if you get mad at your spouse or child, a big fight ensues, neighbors call police who roll up to your house on suspicion of domestic violence. You're carrying a gun in your CCW holster and you've had a few beers. You're still visibly upset from the argument and not at your most coherent best. Cop writes it up as domestic abuse with some special circumstances of intoxication and possessing a loaded firearm. Better have a good lawyer.

I appreciate your concerns, but the logical solution to this problem is loosen restrictions, not create more.

You're conflating DWI and carrying while intoxicated in a way that many do, and that's understandable because so many people think carrying a gun and driving a car are equivalent.

In reality, they're not the same at all. Having a gun in a holster is more like having a car in your driveway: you could use it, but you're not actually using it. Your level of impairment doesn't matter.

Driving while impaired theoretically endangers everyone on the road, even if you don't actually drive dangerously (there is a separate argument about this, but this isn't the time nor place for that discussion); this is equivalent to randomly shooting into the air.

A gun in your holster is the same as a car in your driveway: until you actually operate it, it doesn't matter how intoxicated you are. And once you do operate it (by driving or firing), you should be responsible for you actions that harm or threaten others. Driving your 4,000 pound weapon while impaired endangers others. Being a passenger in that 4,000 pound weapon while totally blotto and carrying a concealed handgun doesn't endanger anyone.