Greg Abbott and OC

[gdanaher]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between having the right to purchase or own a gun, knowing how to properly use it, and then carrying it in a public place with the potential of doing harm. The CHL training has never been what I could call comprehensive, but it is enough to open eyes and draw attention to the important aspects of CC. Yes, there are likely people who never fired a weapon before the proficiency exam, but at least they did it then in a regulated environment. Open carry with no license requirement means you can own that gun, carry it, never fire it until you think you need to, and have no vision of the outcome. I imagine a Texas with open carry for those licensed for concealed carry. Easy task to vet yourself upon demand by showing the proper person your license which eliminates any question of your criminal pedigree.

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

You are terrible observant sometimes Chas. But I hope you know that I just meant that I want people to be safe when handling firearms, I am very emotionally tied to this as I have been crippled for life and endure pain every day for somebody not practicing proper firearm safety.

You certainly have a different perspective than most of us. You have my prayers for comfort. I do have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe that the current TX CHL training requirements adequately affect the proficiency of a CHL holder in a defensive situation?

2) Do you see the peril in arbitrary training requirements to exercise a right?

1. In comparrison to having no instruction at all, yes, I do. In return, do you see no benefit from taking a CHL course?

2. It seems that some people see the process to get a CHL as terrible burden and so terriibly restrictive, that it prevents people from exercising their rights. That's like askig if I see the peril in having arbitrary requirements to buy a gun. There needs to be middle ground found, and I believe our current process is acceptable. In return, do you believe that we should have no regulations on who can carry a gun where? That it should be completely free?

I am willing to debate this until it's dead, we're talking about our opinions here, not arguing over facts.

[TXBO]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

You are terrible observant sometimes Chas. But I hope you know that I just meant that I want people to be safe when handling firearms, I am very emotionally tied to this as I have been crippled for life and endure pain every day for somebody not practicing proper firearm safety.

You certainly have a different perspective than most of us. You have my prayers for comfort. I do have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe that the current TX CHL training requirements adequately affect the proficiency of a CHL holder in a defensive situation?

2) Do you see the peril in arbitrary training requirements to exercise a right?

1. In comparrison to having no instruction at all, yes, I do. In return, do you see no benefit from taking a CHL course?

2. It seems that some people see the process to get a CHL as terrible burden and so terriibly restrictive, that it prevents people from exercising their rights. That's like askig if I see the peril in having arbitrary requirements to buy a gun. There needs to be middle ground found, and I believe our current process is acceptable. In return, do you believe that we should have no regulations on who can carry a gun where? That it should be completely free?

I am willing to debate this until it's dead, we're talking about our opinions here, not arguing over facts.

1) I've taken the CHL class in TX twice as well as the renewal once. (moved 3 times) Other than the time spent on where carry is legal, I found it totally inadequate. I'd even go so far as to say that it gives many people a false sense of accomplishment.

2) Yes, I think it should be free. I believe that anyone that is legal to "keep arms" should be legal to "bear arms". I believe that rights are something you lose by breaking the law, not something for which you earn, qualify or apply.

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

You are terrible observant sometimes Chas. But I hope you know that I just meant that I want people to be safe when handling firearms, I am very emotionally tied to this as I have been crippled for life and endure pain every day for somebody not practicing proper firearm safety.

You certainly have a different perspective than most of us. You have my prayers for comfort. I do have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe that the current TX CHL training requirements adequately affect the proficiency of a CHL holder in a defensive situation?

2) Do you see the peril in arbitrary training requirements to exercise a right?

1. In comparrison to having no instruction at all, yes, I do. In return, do you see no benefit from taking a CHL course?

2. It seems that some people see the process to get a CHL as terrible burden and so terriibly restrictive, that it prevents people from exercising their rights. That's like askig if I see the peril in having arbitrary requirements to buy a gun. There needs to be middle ground found, and I believe our current process is acceptable. In return, do you believe that we should have no regulations on who can carry a gun where? That it should be completely free?

I am willing to debate this until it's dead, we're talking about our opinions here, not arguing over facts.

1) I've taken the CHL class in TX twice as well as the renewal once. (moved 3 times) Other than the time spent on where carry is legal, I found it totally inadequate. I'd even go so far as to say that it gives many people a false sense of accomplishment.

2) Yes, I think it should be free. I believe that anyone that is legal to "keep arms" should be legal to "bear arms". I believe that rights are something you lose by breaking the law, not something for which you earn, qualify or apply.

1. I agree, it is inadequate, but it is better than nothing. I am more than certain I would get hounded by at least one person if I suggested we increase class time, and have more curriculum to assist new shooters. But in previous posts, you can read that others see what we currently have as an infringement of their rights, and we'll leave it at that, since we can agree on the training portion.

2. I can't argue with wanting it free, and that there should be a check to see if you're legal to carry. And IMO, we do have the right, and we choose to utilize those rights. It is an inconvenience to have to apply and wait for your chl, but remember that it rewards you with lack of the inconvenince when buying a gun.

[mojo84]

The CHL course is not intended to be introduction to guns 101. It's to make you aware of the laws and expose you to some alternatives to shooting someone, potential consequences and deescalation strategy. The range time is not to teach one how to handle a gun or how to shoot it. It is to see if you can competently handle one.

There are other courses to learn the basics for beginners and this should not be tied to the chl licensing process.

[TXBO]

.... The range time is not to teach one how to handle a gun or how to shoot it. It is to see if you can competently handle one.

....

My opinion is that it's not a good reflection on competency.....Furthermore, I'd suggest that many, that pass the course, hold themselves as competent and they are not.

[anygunanywhere]

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

[mojo84]

.... The range time is not to teach one how to handle a gun or how to shoot it. It is to see if you can competently handle one.

....

My opinion is that it's not a good reflection on competency.....Furthermore, I'd suggest that many, that pass the course, hold themselves as competent and they are not.

Depends on how you define competent.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

Since CHL's to you will lead to our deaths, we'll move on from that. Could you explain to me what you want as far as how guns are bought, sold, and who can have them, and where they can carry them? You don't have to go into song, I just want to know what it is that is acceptable to you. I only have bits and peices from previous posts

[Charlies.Contingency]

The CHL course is not intended to be introduction to guns 101. It's to make you aware of the laws and expose you to some alternatives to shooting someone, potential consequences and deescalation strategy. The range time is not to teach one how to handle a gun or how to shoot it. It is to see if you can competently handle one.

There are other courses to learn the basics for beginners and this should not be tied to the chl licensing process.

It is not an introductory class, we all know that it doesn't teach basics. Do you realize how many people buy a gun and attempt to get their chl with it, having never handled a handgun before? I never thought it possible, until I sat in on a class, and when the students were asked how many have shot a handgun before, and how many have ever handled a handgun until now, and hands didn't go up. We can't make anybody go through training courses before taking the chl, but the CHL class does teach a lot that is needed before CCing. It's also nice that there is a firearm proficiency test, be that it is minimal, it's still more than some think is "constitutionally acceptable."

[anygunanywhere]

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

Since CHL's to you will lead to our deaths, we'll move on from that. Could you explain to me what you want as far as how guns are bought, sold, and who can have them, and where they can carry them? You don't have to go into song, I just want to know what it is that is acceptable to you. I only have bits and peices from previous posts

I have no problem with restricting felons from carrying.

Requiring permits to exercise God given rights is infringement whether it is OC or CC.

Citizens should be allowed to carry wherever LEO can carry.

Machine gun bans are extreme infringements. Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own whatever the military is using.

What I carry on my person is no one else's business.

I have mixed thoughts on background checks. If all it was was a background check called in when a person produces government issued ID then that would be OK but my distrust of government gives me pause for concern. Having to fill out the stupid 4473 is a waste of time. I used to be an FFL so I have experience with the laws and ATF audits.

Person to person sales are a fact of life. Get over it. The government should forget about it. There are no gun show loopholes.

Firearms laws are a state concern, not the feds. The interstate commerce clause has been overused and is a tool for tyranny.

Since firearms are a state concern, the feds have pretty much rolled up, squashed, and trampled all over the second amendment. The Post Office, Corp of Engineers, BLM, Parks Service, pretty much every fed alphabet agency has made infringing the second amendment their stock and trade.

[jimlongley]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.

Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?

Have I ever said in my text the words "Constitutional Carry?" No. I never said that about Open Carry anyway, it was a contrasting statement to whom suggested I was wanting to take away our rights, because I am for "RESTRICTING GUNS TO AMERICANS" by supporting a background check. If you removed restrictions, what would you have? No restrictions... Seems pretty simple to me. And there is no such thing as constitutional carry, it's an idea and a catch phrase. I though chas already cleared that up?

Well, I disagree with Charles - constitutional carry is a concept, not a thing, and you were responding to a statement about such with a reductio ad absurdam statement that he was for felons walking around armed unhindered, I was merely pointing out that the restriction already pre-exists the issue. If the concept known as constitutional carry, which does indeed exist in some places, comes to pass in TX, it will still be illegal for felons to possess.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

Since CHL's to you will lead to our deaths, we'll move on from that. Could you explain to me what you want as far as how guns are bought, sold, and who can have them, and where they can carry them? You don't have to go into song, I just want to know what it is that is acceptable to you. I only have bits and peices from previous posts

I have no problem with restricting felons from carrying.

Requiring permits to exercise God given rights is infringement whether it is OC or CC.

Citizens should be allowed to carry wherever LEO can carry.

Machine gun bans are extreme infringements. Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own whatever the military is using.

What I carry on my person is no one else's business.

I have mixed thoughts on background checks. If all it was was a background check called in when a person produces government issued ID then that would be OK but my distrust of government gives me pause for concern. Having to fill out the stupid 4473 is a waste of time. I used to be an FFL so I have experience with the laws and ATF audits.

Person to person sales are a fact of life. Get over it. The government should forget about it. There are no gun show loopholes.

Firearms laws are a state concern, not the feds. The interstate commerce clause has been overused and is a tool for tyranny.

Since firearms are a state concern, the feds have pretty much rolled up, squashed, and trampled all over the second amendment. The Post Office, Corp of Engineers, BLM, Parks Service, pretty much every fed alphabet agency has made infringing the second amendment their stock and trade.

Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You want a new system, i'm just trying to work with what we have now. I hope you understand that it's not because I want restrictions.

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.

Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?

Have I ever said in my text the words "Constitutional Carry?" No. I never said that about Open Carry anyway, it was a contrasting statement to whom suggested I was wanting to take away our rights, because I am for "RESTRICTING GUNS TO AMERICANS" by supporting a background check. If you removed restrictions, what would you have? No restrictions... Seems pretty simple to me. And there is no such thing as constitutional carry, it's an idea and a catch phrase. I though chas already cleared that up?

Well, I disagree with Charles - constitutional carry is a concept, not a thing, and you were responding to a statement about such with a reductio ad absurdam statement that he was for felons walking around armed unhindered, I was merely pointing out that the restriction already pre-exists the issue. If the concept known as constitutional carry, which does indeed exist in some places, comes to pass in TX, it will still be illegal for felons to possess.

Of course, I understand. Refer to post above please.

[TXBO]

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

Since CHL's to you will lead to our deaths, we'll move on from that. Could you explain to me what you want as far as how guns are bought, sold, and who can have them, and where they can carry them? You don't have to go into song, I just want to know what it is that is acceptable to you. I only have bits and peices from previous posts

I have no problem with restricting felons from carrying.

Requiring permits to exercise God given rights is infringement whether it is OC or CC.

Citizens should be allowed to carry wherever LEO can carry.

Machine gun bans are extreme infringements. Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own whatever the military is using.

What I carry on my person is no one else's business.

I have mixed thoughts on background checks. If all it was was a background check called in when a person produces government issued ID then that would be OK but my distrust of government gives me pause for concern. Having to fill out the stupid 4473 is a waste of time. I used to be an FFL so I have experience with the laws and ATF audits.

Person to person sales are a fact of life. Get over it. The government should forget about it. There are no gun show loopholes.

Firearms laws are a state concern, not the feds. The interstate commerce clause has been overused and is a tool for tyranny.

Since firearms are a state concern, the feds have pretty much rolled up, squashed, and trampled all over the second amendment. The Post Office, Corp of Engineers, BLM, Parks Service, pretty much every fed alphabet agency has made infringing the second amendment their stock and trade.

Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You want a new system, i'm just trying to work with what we have now. I hope you understand that it's not because I want restrictions.

The answer is greater penalties for negligence.