Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Please Support the N.R.A. 
Maybe he actually has a "life"74novaman wrote:Well, the OP last visited yesterday when he made this post.
or, a troll.
sugar land dave wrote:Original Poster,
Responsibility is an important thing. It does not make you important, rather it is the tasks you have been made responsible for that are important. It is a trust you have been granted by someone who themselves have a responsibility to determine that you are qualified and able to perform and bear the necessary burdens of some portion of society. The greater the responsibility, the greater the vetting is that a candidate for a responsible position must pass through.
As a CHL holder you were seen by an instructor licensed by an agency of the State of Texas. If that instructor does not believe you are capable, he does not have to give his approval. He actually has had "eyes on" experience with you and fulfilled his responsibility by determining that in his mind you were capable of meeting the requirements of conceal carry. In Austin, someone in the DPS office investigated your request for license, reviewed all necessary factors, and made a determination in your favor. Each level of government that the DPS person contacted had the responsibility to determine if you were a person qualified. The fact that you have your license in your pocket means that all had an opportunity to declare that they had reservations about you, but none did.
At some point in life, you must trust yourself as others have trusted you.
In William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet's companion Laertes is given advice by his father, Polonius. In modern English it is basically:
Don't tell all you think, or put into action thoughts out of harmony or proportion with the occasion. Be friendly, but not common; don't dull your palm by effusively shaking hands with every chance newcomer. Avoid quarrels if you can, but if they are forced on you, give a good account of yourself. Hear every man's censure (opinion), but express your own ideas to few. Dress well, but not ostentatiously. Neither borrow nor lend. And guarantee yourself against being false to others by setting up the high moral principle of being true to yourself.
In Olde English, the most important part read:
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
Welcome OP, and may you make good decisions and stand bravely when accounting yourself to others.
http://www.whitedovebooks.co.uk/poems/i ... on_51.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with Sugarland Dave Please Support the N.R.A. 
G26ster wrote:i can't speak for the OP, but he has a point. What are the odds of the CHL being attacked outside the home, vs. the CHL running afoul of the law just by carrying? If I was betting, I'd bet on the latter. Obviously he has read threads on the forum dealing with laws of concealed carry. Many of the posts usually contain the phrase "IANAL" meaning the layman's opinion of the post is worth what the OP paid for it. He has probably read numerous times, "I don't want to be the test case," or "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." The "ride" may mean you go free, but you've just spent your life savings to do so. He has also probably read of prosecutors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and LEOs that have their "own interpretation" of the law. Everyday on the forum there are questions posted with no clear legal conclusion.
How often and when to carry is a very personal choice. There is no doubt that it stretches from lackadaisical to the intense, depending on the individual. Some carry 24/7, both outside and inside the home, and have weapons stashed throughout the house. Others don't carry at all. Then there are those in the middle somewhere. Personal choice. Life is full of risks, and one person's decision when and where to be armed does not fit in with every other person's decision.
The OP stated he would have defensive weapons at home. When we read almost on a daily basis that a BG was shot breaking into a home or business, he's got that covered. Outside the home, we preach d-escalation, run to get away if you can, and only as an absolute last resort to use your weapon. How often do we read about the CHL outside the home having to use his weapon? Infrequently I think. Perhaps in a high risk business (stop & rob, jewelry store, etc.), but not just out and about. Can it happen just out and about? Sure it can, and it does, but then the odds of it happening come into play again. I'm old, slow and dated, but I recall that even in a combat zone everyone was not armed 24/7. I think the OP is simply weighing his risks and believes the risk of running afoul of the law, whether by his own error, or by vagueness in the law or the loose interpretation of some in authority, is greater than the risk of being attacked outside his home. I wish the OP the best with his decision(s).
Not sure. He seemed fine when he said, "I will keep my guns for home protection but that is as far as they will go." That leads me to believe it's only the potential pitfalls of carrying outside of the home that troubles him. Doesn't seem like he has an issue with defending himself at home.johnson0317 wrote:I think the OP may have been focusing on something completely different. I believe he may be worried about what happens after he defends himself, even if it is a righteous shooting. He may have heard the multitude of stories about how you can sit in jail for months, pay tens of thousands of dollars, lose everything you own, and still end up getting convicted if the DA is an anti. In that case, it seems like the government is as out to get you as the bad guy was.
I hate to use cliches, but I would advise him, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six".
RJ
I often feel the way the OP does...I try to carry as often as I can, but the statistical odds (as inferred in the quote above) make me wonder sometimes...i can't speak for the OP, but he has a point. What are the odds of the CHL being attacked outside the home, vs. the CHL running afoul of the law just by carrying? If I was betting, I'd bet on the latter.
