TexasCHLforum.com

A 3rd degree felony for unlicensed carrying of a stun gun???? That is ridiculous.

[Sarcasm On] I didn't know stun gun possession was such a problem. What's next; NICS check for stun gun purchases???
[Sarcasm Off]

This is one bill I hope never to see out of committee.

Well considering the resounding success (sarcasm off) of these "less than lethal" in not killing too many people...

I have a serious doubt that even I, a well respected and well trained user of devices meant to provide a means of defending yourself against serious injury or death...That I might NOT have the restraint needed to pull my fingerr off the trigger (juice) button to cease amperage being delivered to a person I discharge this device against...

I am afraid I may get too much pleasure out of seeing someone flop like a piece of bacon on a hot frying pan...

But seriously...Any device like this which has been widely publicized that does not offer a proven 100% "less than lethal" track record in it use by law enforcement agencies across the country...I would believe that it would be better that the law-abiding public should not pursue using devices like this and stick to the firearms we use today...

My philosophy is this...If you are not committed to getting trained, proficient in the use, studying the law, and the idea of carrying a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes...

Then why do you think that buying a device that offers this capability and a less than stellar record in its claim of "less than lethal" and carrying it, makes it a better option for a private citizen???

I say this with a well known and documented respect for our CHL community and law enforcement personnel...

As for the bill that is filed...I believe it is a waste of time, and if debated too long may keep something more important to all of us from getting passed and signed into law...This is one of those I would toss in the circular filing container...

Just my opinion...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Well considering the resounding success (sarcasm off) of these "less than lethal" in not killing too many people...

I have a serious doubt that even I, a well respected and well trained user of devices meant to provide a means of defending yourself against serious injury or death...That I might NOT have the restraint needed to pull my fingerr off the trigger (juice) button to cease amperage being delivered to a person I discharge this device against...

I am afraid I may get too much pleasure out of seeing someone flop like a piece of bacon on a hot frying pan...

But seriously...Any device like this which has been widely publicized that does not offer a proven 100% "less than lethal" track record in it use by law enforcement agencies across the country...I would believe that it would be better that the law-abiding public should not pursue using devices like this and stick to the firearms we use today...

My philosophy is this...If you are not committed to getting trained, proficient in the use, studying the law, and the idea of carrying a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes...

Then why do you think that buying a device that offers this capability and a less than stellar record in its claim of "less than lethal" and carrying it, makes it a better option for a private citizen???

I say this with a well known and documented respect for our CHL community and law enforcement personnel...

As for the bill that is filed...I believe it is a waste of time, and if debated too long may keep something more important to all of us from getting passed and signed into law...This is one of those I would toss in the circular filing container...

Just my opinion...

Training yes.

License no.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:
Training yes.

License no.

Anygunanywhere

How would you show you had been trained? A license, no?

Purplehood wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Training yes.

License no.

Anygunanywhere

How would you show you had been trained? A license, no?

Much the same way ASP does, given a walletable certificate of training, much like MSF or ATV Safety course card.

Purplehood wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Training yes.

License no.

Anygunanywhere

How would you show you had been trained? A license, no?

Documentation of completed course provided by a certified instructor.

Anygunanywhere

Russell wrote:Is it really necessary to restrict carrying a stun gun without a license?

What does everyone here think about this bill?

I definitely think SB94 is a bad bill.

It adds "stun guns" under TPC Section 46.05 ("Prohibited Weapons"), lumping it in with all the NFA goodies and making it a third degree felony to even possess one (not carry one) without the license it proposes to create. If they feel the need to licence carrying stun guns, it should be added under § 46.02 ("Unlawful Carrying Weapons"), with the same penalties attached as carrying a handgun without a license (ie a Class A Misdemeanor).

An even better place to add it, and the only place that it would be justified in my opinion, would be under § 46.04 ("Unlawful Possession of a Firearm"). Subsection 46.041 is the law prohibiting possession of body armor by a felon, and I can see the justification for adding stun guns to the list of items that felons may not possess.

I believe we should stick to bullets, and not amperage...

Just my opinion...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Think of it this way...



Could you do this with a stun gun???

Sorry, this just got the best of me...

I think that link violated the 10 y/o daughter rule.

Nothin' like a little pratice on the Mozambique.

Remember if the legislature passes the bill and Perry signs it and you have a CHL but not a CSGL,
then, "Don't Stun'em, Gun'em".

Jungle Work

I would expect this one to be quickly laughed out of committee. Members might even gather at the curb to throw rocks at the sponsor's car as he drives off in shame.

Oops, I linked the one that had the one bad word in it...

That sure did slip by the Steve filter didn't it...I need to go find the PG version...I know I've seen it around here somewhere...

Man, its been a while since I did something this bad hasn't it???

KBCraig wrote:I would expect this one to be quickly laughed out of committee. Members might even gather at the curb to throw rocks at the sponsor's car as he drives off in shame.

We could get a petition going, and instead of rocks...We can rent a few Tasers and shoot them at the car as they drive off...See how well that might work...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Oops, I linked the one that had the one bad word in it...

That sure did slip by the Steve filter didn't it...I need to go find the PG version...I know I've seen it around here somewhere...

Man, its been a while since I did something this bad hasn't it???

I'm just glad I got to see the clip before it went away. Was pretty funny..