How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

[chamberc]

Compvest driving a car isn't a LEO thing either but the DPS administers it also. I agree the fees are too high but disagree that I want to be around some of the people that would carry if there was no license requirement. I know a lot of people that even after taking the course and passing I am uncomfortable knowing their absent minded hot tempered @55 are acarying a loded weapon. Besides unrestricted carry would actually put greater restrictions on those of us that would like the ability to legally carry in other states, even unrestricted Alaska offers a license for the people that want to carry in the lower 48 while visiting or vacationing.

Driving a car isn't a protected right in the US Constitution, carrying a firearm is.

[Keith B]

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.

I totally disagree. Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.

[marksiwel]

Driving a car isn't a protected right in the US Constitution, carrying a firearm is.

You have a right to travel, that cant be taken away from you without due process. Its not in the constitution but it was in the Articles of the Federation. The founding fathers just didnt see a reason to include a right that seemed so basic.

[blue]

Cut the price to $25/5 yr for ALL applicants, and all that paperwork WILL be REDUCED, Pronto!

Severe price cuts could just be the key.


(Just for ref. the Utah is ONE page, (one side) + Prints, Photo, Fee.)

[mbw]

What do we mean by “Improve”?
How about these-
1. Improve means that all CHL holders would have a better knowledge of the laws concerning use of deadly force in Texas.
2.Improve means that all holders of CHL’s would be well schooled in handling weapons.
3.Improve means that all people should be free to exercise their rights under our constitution without undue government restrictions being placed on them.
4.Improve means that as a citizen I do in fact have unalienable rights that I should be able to exercise at my discretion, not needing prior permission from my government.

Improve could and does have many implications as far as the CHL program goes. Myself, I would like to see the fees cut way back. I also like #’s 3 and 4 above. I actually like all of the list above, but I really like 3 and 4.

[boomerang]

Repeal PC chapter 46 for starters.

chabouk, for the win!

[chamberc]

Driving a car isn't a protected right in the US Constitution, carrying a firearm is.

You have a right to travel, that cant be taken away from you without due process. Its not in the constitution but it was in the Articles of the Federation. The founding fathers just didnt see a reason to include a right that seemed so basic.

Traveling is not the same as driving. We do prohibt everyone from driving without a license.

Comparing driving to carrying a firearm is not valid, and even dangerous. Driving is not a right in the constitution, whereas bearing firearms is.

[D.R.T.]

I would allow law abiding citizens to carry more places...no sense why the bad guys can carry where ever they want and we are restricted.

[chabouk]

Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.

Testosterone impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' when he gets all puffed up over a perceived insult? I have.

Your argument boils down to: Because some people might be inclined to act badly while drinking, all people should be banned from carrying while drinking. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gunners regarding carry in general.

[Keith B]

Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.

Testosterone impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' when he gets all puffed up over a perceived insult? I have.

Your argument boils down to: Because some people might be inclined to act badly while drinking, all people should be banned from carrying while drinking. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gunners regarding carry in general.

That is not what I am saying. Having A drink is not what you were stating. Your statement was that it shouldn't matter if you were slobbering drunk (totally blotto in your words) while carrying as long as you were not driving. I disagree as normal judgment is impaired totally when you are intoxicated. Are you still a mellow drunk? Maybe, but would your decision to draw and shoot, and shoot safely be affected in that condition? I guarantee it would be. (Again, we're talking intoxicated, not the I had one drink scenario.)

[marksiwel]

Driving a car isn't a protected right in the US Constitution, carrying a firearm is.

You have a right to travel, that cant be taken away from you without due process. Its not in the constitution but it was in the Articles of the Federation. The founding fathers just didnt see a reason to include a right that seemed so basic.

Traveling is not the same as driving. We do prohibt everyone from driving without a license.

Comparing driving to carrying a firearm is not valid, and even dangerous. Driving is not a right in the constitution, whereas bearing firearms is.

You can drive without a license, just not on public property.

Travel includes drivings,walking, riding a horse, taking a plane ect.

[Rifleman55]

I would do away with it and allow anyone who is not a criminal to carry any way that they liked and anyplace, except while visiting jails etc,

[Kevinf2349]

Ban all 30.06 signage.

Make it so that all places the Joe Public can go without a concealed gun, Jane Public can go with a concealed gun (excluding 51% and private abodes).

Make it illegal for landlords to ban tennents from having firearms if they have a CHL.

Make the CHL have the same 'life' as the DL.

....and I personally would like to see some kind of requirement to at least have to shoot the gun sometime in the 4 years you hold the licence!

[chabouk]

Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.

Testosterone impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' when he gets all puffed up over a perceived insult? I have.

Your argument boils down to: Because some people might be inclined to act badly while drinking, all people should be banned from carrying while drinking. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gunners regarding carry in general.

That is not what I am saying. Having A drink is not what you were stating. Your statement was that it shouldn't matter if you were slobbering drunk (totally blotto in your words) while carrying as long as you were not driving. I disagree as normal judgment is impaired totally when you are intoxicated. Are you still a mellow drunk? Maybe, but would your decision to draw and shoot, and shoot safely be affected in that condition? I guarantee it would be. (Again, we're talking intoxicated, not the I had one drink scenario.)

No matter how impaired someone's judgement and motor skills might be, the legal standard for justification does not change. You assume that people will be more likely to act without justification while intoxicated; I don't share that assumption. Sure, some might; others might have the opposite reaction and be more hesitant because they're worried about their judgement.

My point is this: no matter the degree, when you argue that carry should be prohibited because of how some people might act, you're using Brady logic. Please understand I don't mean that as a personal insult, I'm just trying to get you to see the consistency.

"Because some people might act rashly in {Circumstance X}, no one should be able to carry a gun in {Circumstance X}."
Now, for {Circumstance X}, substitute:
- while intoxicated
- after a single drop of alcohol
- at a sporting event
- at a parade
- at a political rally
- inside a 51% business, even while not drinking
- at church
- in a hospital
- unless a LEO or member of the military

See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

[A-R]

Comparing driving to carrying a firearm is not valid, and even dangerous. Driving is not a right in the constitution, whereas bearing firearms is.

Jumping slightly off topic here and playing devil's advocate for a moment, so bear with me.

IMHO, constantly falling back on "RKBA is in 2A of the Constitution" for EVERY gun argument grows very tiresome for the 60% of the population that is "in the middle" on the gun debate, and really any political debate in this country (20% strongly to each side, 60% in the middle ... I won't waste time backing up that assertion; it's been discussed ad nauseum in a plethora of political analysis).

To the average Joe who may or may not think that much about the gun issue in daily life, saying you have an absolute right to carry a gun (which he doesn't do and may not see/understand the need for) but not an absolute right to drive a car (which he DOES do and very much needs to do and understands this need) makes you seem a bit nutty. But saying that absolute right extends to drunken carry of firearms while drunken driving can be outlawed makes you seem positively insane, and likely pushes this "60 percenter" closer to the anti-gun 20% point of view. It makes this person, who normally doesn't think much about guns, take sides in the gun debate because "carrying a gun while drunk can't possibly be safe and I can't support anyone who says so and maybe I shouldn't even be supporting this crazy person's right to have a gun in the first place. Maybe I'll take a look at this Brady Campaign web site my liberal neighbor told me about. "

Who cares? Well, here's where the absolute RKBA argument gets dangerous. Despite what we were all taught in school, RKBA (as defined by 2A, not talking about "inalienable rights of man" here), nothing in the Constitution is absolute. It can all be changed with enough votes. If you get enough of the 60% in this issue to become part of the ever-growing formerly 20% anti-gun crowd, you then have the potential for enough political power to legally overturn 2A. You only need 66% of the House and Senate to propose a change to the Constitution and 75% to pass. The Dems are over 60% in both right now. Would this doomsday scenario happen overnight? Of course not, but the gun restrictions we currently have didn't happen overnight either.

A better discussion tactic is to explain why "gun rights (which, by the way, are guaranteed by RKBA/2A) are just as important as a perceived right to drive a car (which, by the way, is not guaranteed by the Constitution), and here's why ..." Even if we don't convince the middle 60% of Americans to join us in gun ownership and use; if we can just convince them of why it is vitally important to us (and by extension all Americans), then we at least keep them in the middle and away from the reactionary anti-gun crowd.

To dismiss every argument for gun restrictions as "well that's against 2A and unConstitutional" is dismissive to many legitimate concerns (like drunken use of firearms) and short-sighted to the ultimate goal of maintaining the rights we do have and expanding them as we can. Heck, even conservative Supreme Court stalwart Scalia said that "some" regulation of private ownership and use of guns IS CONSTITUTIONAL. And he's on OUR SIDE!

/soapbox