Enhanced CHL

[Dragonfighter]

I haven't given any thought to something like that, but I can see some issues with it right off the bat. Property rights being usurped, as mentioned above. Also, think of how the CHL badgers would act if they had an ECHL? They be wearing capes and masks and making up funny names for themselves....

Just a word about private property rights. I see a vast difference between you and I controlling access to our property and a business or other facility opened to the public forbidding me from entering because of an otherwise legal activity. In the meantime, these places allow every other flea scratchin' dog to enter without so much as a "how do you do?". I think if its open to the general public, especially without a reasonable security apparatus in place, you should lose your "right" to restrict CHL carry on your property;that is if you even knew who it was that was carrying.

Just curious; do you own a business?

More a paying hobby but that effects the point how?

• Restricted, limited and/or secure access, fine, regulate the carry of weapons anyway you'd like.
• Unrestricted public access, then no, you shouldn't be able to turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal for otherwise legally carrying self protection.

PRIVATE property is one thing, property you open to all manner of folks is another. I hope the difference is apparent.

[jbarn]

I haven't given any thought to something like that, but I can see some issues with it right off the bat. Property rights being usurped, as mentioned above. Also, think of how the CHL badgers would act if they had an ECHL? They be wearing capes and masks and making up funny names for themselves....

Just a word about private property rights. I see a vast difference between you and I controlling access to our property and a business or other facility opened to the public forbidding me from entering because of an otherwise legal activity. In the meantime, these places allow every other flea scratchin' dog to enter without so much as a "how do you do?". I think if its open to the general public, especially without a reasonable security apparatus in place, you should lose your "right" to restrict CHL carry on your property;that is if you even knew who it was that was carrying.

Just curious; do you own a business?

More a paying hobby but that effects the point how?

• Restricted, limited and/or secure access, fine, regulate the carry of weapons anyway you'd like.
• Unrestricted public access, then no, you shouldn't be able to turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal for otherwise legally carrying self protection.

PRIVATE property is one thing, property you open to all manner of folks is another. I hope the difference is apparent.

I don't see the difference. My property, I can control what happens and who has access. You have a right to swing your fist, a right that ends before my nose. Same here.

Comments about race, handicap, etc., are not valid arguments. You CHOOSE to carry a gun, and I can CHOOSE to decide I don't want you too.

You are advocating the government restricting my rights over yours.

[jmra]

I have thought this to myself for a long time. After seeing posts like this and others that seem like the folks that post them are after police type authority because they have a CHL, There are times I am more concerned about a CHL holder than I am a bad guy...
After being on this board for 6-7 years, I would think twice about pulling my weapon in a public place unless I personally was in danger.
I remind folks, the CHL laws were written to allow us to carry for personal protection.

I have no desire to be a cop but the CHL law clearly was also written to include defending a third party.

The use of force laws have always allowed defense of a third person, and have nothing to do, really, with the CHL laws. The use of force laws are the same for CHL holders and those who do not hold one. Same for cops, too. (LEOs do have a section on escapees, etc.)

The CHL laws simply allow you to carry, and do not address the purpose.

That is a vast oversimplification of the concept being discussed. Otherwise, this document http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetfo ... chl-16.pdf would be two pages long.

[jbarn]

I have thought this to myself for a long time. After seeing posts like this and others that seem like the folks that post them are after police type authority because they have a CHL, There are times I am more concerned about a CHL holder than I am a bad guy...
After being on this board for 6-7 years, I would think twice about pulling my weapon in a public place unless I personally was in danger.
I remind folks, the CHL laws were written to allow us to carry for personal protection.

I have no desire to be a cop but the CHL law clearly was also written to include defending a third party.

The use of force laws have always allowed defense of a third person, and have nothing to do, really, with the CHL laws. The use of force laws are the same for CHL holders and those who do not hold one. Same for cops, too. (LEOs do have a section on escapees, etc.)

The CHL laws simply allow you to carry, and do not address the purpose.

That is a vast oversimplification of the concept being discussed. Otherwise, this document http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetfo ... chl-16.pdf would be two pages long.

Not really. The use of force laws in chapter 9 of the penal code cover when one may use force and deadly force. It applies to everyone. The CHL laws are found in Chapter 46 of the penal code and 411(h) of the government code, and address the specifics of the CHL laws. When CHL was passed in 1995 no changes were made to the use of force laws.

The CHL laws do not address the purpose of the law, other than to allow the lawful carry of handguns.

To learn those CHL and use of force laws requires much more than two pages, yes. But the basic concept is simple.

1. CHL laws address when, where and under what conditions one may be licensed and may carry

2. Use of force laws address when one may use force/deadly force. These laws apply to CHL and non -CHL holders equally.

One may use deadly force to defend others under the justifications provided in chapter 9 without regard for the CHL status of the person.

[Abraham]

Does one really need an American Gold Card or isn't the status of an American Green Card adequate?

My CHL is bettern your Card, my Card's better than your, or, or, card, my card's better cause it eats kennel ration....or something like that.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>

• Restricted, limited and/or secure access, fine, regulate the carry of weapons anyway you'd like.
• Unrestricted public access, then no, you shouldn't be able to turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal for otherwise legally carrying self protection.

PRIVATE property is one thing, property you open to all manner of folks is another. I hope the difference is apparent.

I don't see the difference. My property, I can control what happens and who has access. You have a right to swing your fist, a right that ends before my nose. Same here.

If you can't see the difference, there is little else to add. But using your statement, "I can control what happens and who has access"; if you controlled access, I.E. locked doors with remote entry buttons, scanners and or armed security (Six Flags for example) then that is one thing. My argument is against "private" companies that allow unfettered access to the public (hours not withstanding) and all the types that brings with it and yet are allowed to make me a criminal by entering with an item that is legal and that you are very unlikely to have any idea is even there.

Comments about race, handicap, etc., are not valid arguments. You CHOOSE to carry a gun, and I can CHOOSE to decide I don't want you too.

You are advocating the government restricting my rights over yours.

• One, I made no mention of race, sex, handicap or any other protected class. But FWIW I can say to anyone, get out of my yard for any reason, but I lose that right when I open my doors to the public and even have to make accommodations, I.E. ADA.
• Two, you are conflating my argument and inserting motive that is not there nor evidenced by statements.

Added in Edit: Skating around the edges of Reductio ad Absurdum, what if the owner of private property, open to the public, was a rabid ecologist and insisted you could not bring car keys in to his shop? Go somewhere else? Well, what if that became the norm? What if it was something necessary for life and health, only available there. You argue against advocating the government supporting one's rights over another and I agree, but that is already the case and as long as that (PC 30.06) is a legally viable option for ANY private business, than the ridiculous idea of most or all businesses closing the doors to CHL, however unlikely, is a possibility. Then what, you still want the State to stay out of it?

Added in Edit's Edit: Another question comes to mind: I can't come in armed, but the trip to and from my vehicle? One might say, they can't disarm you in the car and in most parking lots but they do so in effect as a consequence of disarming to enter. Again, what if it is something you HAVE to have and is not available in alternative locations?

[texanjoker]

I'm assuming that reserve officers are called to respond to a crisis such as a natural disaster, riot, etc., which makes them only helpful after the fact.

An ECHL would able to immediately respond on their own as would a regular CHL, only with superior training and ability carry in more places.

Reserve officers aka non paid leos now days attend the full academy nd are state licensed as a peace officer. When commisioned they patrol and do other leo functions depending on their speciic dept and completed fto training.

[snorri]

In all seriousness, Texas already has an "Enhanced CHL" It's called TECLOSE certification. If you want to be a cop, go to The Police Academy, and be a cop.

There it is!

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

[snorri]

I was thinking to myself today about the concept of Enhanced CHL that would afford privileges somewhere between Peace Officer and regular CHL. Extended privledges could include things such as being able to carry in off-limits places like bars and schools, being exempt from 30.06, being able to open carry, 50-state reciprocity, and being more prepared to act offensively, i.e. come to the aid of others.

Putting aside for now the issues of 50-state reciprocity, which the Texas legislature can't do, and personal mindset and heart, which can't be legislated at any level of government, I think there's some merit to your other suggestions. However, I don't think another licensing tier is the right answer.

For starters, I think 46.035 has outlived its purpose and should be repealed. There is no legitimate reason to impose those restrictions on somebody who is licensed and carrying a handgun, when those same restrictions do not apply to someone who is unlicensed and carrying a much more powerful firearm like a shotgun or center-fire rifle. While I understand NY-style restrictions on handgun licensees may have been necessary to pass the first Texas CHL law nearly 20 years ago, we're long overdue to retire that relic of the "Blood in the Streets" hysteria.

[rdcrags]

They be wearing capes and masks and making up funny names for themselves....

You mean they don't already?

[pcgizzmo]

First of all I say if you want to be a police officer be a police officer. If not, then your are with the rest of us a private citizen with a CHL. If you want to come to the aid of someone you have that choice now if their life is in danger but choose wisely.

I don't even think local police have reciprocity to carry in all 50 states and that would be a federal thing nothing a state could give you. I think that will never happen unless an until you can have truly good CHL laws in all 50 states that recognize CHL's in other states and I'm not talking about the crap CHL laws like you will find in Chicago.

I think CHL holders already should be able to carry in off limit places such as bars, sporting events etc... but I don't see that changing anytime soon. I think it's crazy to tell someone just because your in a place that makes more money from alcohol than food you can't defend yourself against deadly force. It's more likely to happen in a place like that IMO anyway.

[anygunanywhere]

Special privileges like your so called enhanced CHL are the mark of tyrannical states.

Free men require no special priviliges or permissions.

Governments must be given permission for what they do. Governments are what is restricted by the Constitution and BOR.

When the government becan assuming power not given them by the people, the road we are on now began.

Anygunanywhere

[LSUTiger]

We shouldn't need CHL's or any special privledges. I believe in constitutional carry, CC or OC for all guns, handgun or long gun. Private property rights should be respected but public property should be fair game. Schools included. School shootings and other shootings have proven that "Gun free zones" aren't safe.

I have two small children in school and I dread having to drop them off everyday because I know there is not a damn thing I can do to protect them and there is no one else to offer reasonable protection for them. Unless there are a couple of armed officers patrolling the school, the old saying "when seconds count the police or only minutes away" applies.

At the moment, I wish there was a remedy for this, if the schools won't pay for officers to provide security then they should allow volunteers who to provide this service. I would gladly sign up for some sort of extra training program so I could do it for free at my kids school.

Now don't get me wrong, I am happy to have CHL because its all we have at the moment.

[WildBill]

We shouldn't need CHL's or any special privledges. I believe in constitutional carry, CC or OC for all guns, handgun or long gun. Private property rights should be respected but public property should be fair game. Schools included. School shootings and other shootings have proven that "Gun free zones" aren't safe.

I have two small children in school and I dread having to drop them off everyday because I know there is not a darn thing I can do to protect them and there is no one else to offer reasonable protection for them. Unless there are a couple of armed officers patrolling the school, the old saying "when seconds count the police or only minutes away" applies.

At the moment, I wish there was a remedy for this, if the schools won't pay for officers to provide security then they should allow volunteers who to provide this service. I would gladly sign up for some sort of extra training program so I could do it for free at my kids school.

Now don't get me wrong, I am happy to have CHL because its all we have at the moment.

Dreading dropping off children at school. That is a very sad state of affairs.

[Obi-Juan]

Special privileges like your so called enhanced CHL are the mark of tyrannical states.

I disagree. Their restrictions on the general public are the true signs. Whether or not they grant special privileges to a special few, they are tyrannical states or not because of their actions regarding the human rights of the common man, including the unfettered right to bear arms for self defense.