You - the King of Texas

[frankie_the_yankee]

The reason we have these odd age laws, are because PARENTS are not raising their children to be responsible. Hence, the government has to step in and be the parent for them. It stinks, it's not right, but that's the way it is because we have these liberal parents that believe in time-outs and parenting books instead of a good old fashioned spanking.

Think about it. Go to any of your local public High Schools. Do you want ANY of those High School Juniors able to carry a handgun on them?

I know darn well at the High School I went to I wouldn't. They need time to grow up, go to college, get a job, and get out into the real world before they are trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm on them

I agree. You could even talk me into making the age for a CHL 25.

[Liberty]

The reason we have these odd age laws, are because PARENTS are not raising their children to be responsible. Hence, the government has to step in and be the parent for them. It stinks, it's not right, but that's the way it is because we have these liberal parents that believe in time-outs and parenting books instead of a good old fashioned spanking.

Think about it. Go to any of your local public High Schools. Do you want ANY of those High School Juniors able to carry a handgun on them?

I know darn well at the High School I went to I wouldn't. They need time to grow up, go to college, get a job, and get out into the real world before they are trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm on them

I respectfully disagree. The reason children are so slow today to grow up is that we treat them and expect them to be children. There is nothing gentically that causes our 17 yearold teen agers to be more immature than they were 40 - 60 or 100 years ago. Its simply because we as a society coddle them and have little expectations for more. At 17 we demand the courts treat them as adults we can imprisson them as adults and kill them as an adult. but we refuse to let them buy glue, tobbaco or alcohol. I've worked with some High school kids and had a few of my own When I treated them like babys I got the childish behavior in return. When I treat teens like adults they not only behave like adults, but they in return treat others with more respect.

If our military can manage to arm teenagers before they are 21 I can't understand we can't trust our own children. There is another current thread where folks are discussing when they were introduced to firearms. It seems that all these people turned out pretty good. I would bet that if we were to do a study, that we would find that children who were allowed free access to firearms in their teens had more productive lives, stayed out of trouble more than the folks that never touched a gun.

If we can give them cars at 16 or 17 why can't they have guns or bullets. The cars are killing more teens than the bullets ever will.

[Liberty]

I respectfully disagree. The reason children are so slow today to grow up is that we treat them and expect them to be children. There is nothing gentically that causes our 17 yearold teen agers to be more immature than they were 40 - 60 or 100 years ago. .

Unfortunately you are incorrect about there is nothing genetically inferior with a teenagers brain.

Yeah but as I said the genitcs haven't changed over the years.

As far as the military goes, I wouldn't mind raising the age to 21 as well. However, genetically speaking, a teenagers brain is in fact inferior to an adult's brain.

The military wants them young for a reason.

[boomerang]

If I could only change one law, I would make having a CHL an exception to Penal Code 46.03, places weapons prohibited, and abolish 46.035.

Excellent.

Given a broader brush, I too would drastically slash Chapter 46. I would also change Chapter 9 to restore the legal justification to use deadly force on a fleeing felon.

I would make it a crime for Texas Peace Officers to enforce Federal laws or assist the Feds in enforcing those laws. If found guilty, they would permanently lose TCLEOSE certification. Citizens would be allowed to personally sue those who violate the law. (Let the FBI try to police the gun-free school zones or other Brady bunk!)

I would also change the motor vehicle laws so police would tow/impound a car driven by an unlicensed or uninsured driver. They don't give a drunk driver a ticket and send him on his way, so I don't think an uninsured driver should be allowed to get back behind the wheel either.

More comments after I've had time to think this over..........

[Venus Pax]

I agree that many children are being coddled. There are also people that are simply criminal or anti-social by nature, and they raise their children with the same values.
However, I don't think we would see a spike in crime if we issued CHLs to 18-year-olds. Violent criminals usually begin committing crimes long before age 18. There's a paper trail there, and DPS looks into juvenile records when preparing to issue a CHL to the younger crowd.

[Liberty]

I agree that many children are being coddled. There are also people that are simply criminal or anti-social by nature, and they raise their children with the same values.
However, I don't think we would see a spike in crime if we issued CHLs to 18-year-olds. Violent criminals usually begin committing crimes long before age 18. There's a paper trail there, and DPS looks into juvenile records when preparing to issue a CHL to the younger crowd.

how about 17 or 18 if they meet certain criteria with school attendence, grades and testing progress on the mandatory Texas Tests (TASS ??)

[stevie_d_64]

Wait...Nobody got the memo???

I am the King of Texas!!! Bow to ME!!! (or at least send me a case of Shiner... )

But thats beside the point...

I believe over the last few sessions we've seen a great deal of progress towards clearing up some issues, and pushing back the envelope to give us clearer definitions and other parameters to help us apply good principles in defending ourselves...

As far as how and when someone is considered and adult...Well, by law thats been pretty much covered...

The problem is that in reality, we all probably know a few 11-12 year olds that are extremely more mature and disciplined than some 18+ year olds...I happen to know a few that I'd rather see armed than some "adults"...

[Venus Pax]

how about 17 or 18 if they meet certain criteria with school attendence, grades and testing progress on the mandatory Texas Tests (TASS ??)

Liberty, I wouldn't have a problem with the CHL minimum age being 18.

[srothstein]

I would also broaden the Castle Doctrine law so that civil immunity would apply if someone was either not charged or if they were no billed after the lawful use of force or deadly force.

This would mean someone like OJ would have gotten off Scott free.

Would not have mattered to OJ, since he was charged and indicted. It was the trial jury that found him not guilty.

Of course, I would do it the other way and allow civil trials unless a regular trial returned a not guilty verdict. Yep, OJ would have gotten off in my case, but I have a different view of double jeopardy than most. I would also not allow federal charges unless they were filed at the same time as the state charges (no deciding to go for civil rights when you don't like the state verdict).

[KD5NRH]

IF, by some strange set of circumstances, you were asked to "fix" Texas law with regard to firearms, what would you change? You can't re-write US law, of course, but would you make it easier to get a CHL (or do away with licensing), make it tougher, change any of the requirements, or...what? Other than 30.06 issues, what bugs you about gun laws in Texas?

Well, I'd start with the already-mentioned modifications to 30.06 - properly secured areas with armed security only, and mandatory onsite storage (also guarded) for CHLs' weapons. I'd also expand it to include any mandated prohibited places, with the corollary in place that if they fail to meet any of the above requirements, even temporarily, they lose the prohibited status.

I'd make it criminally actionable harassment to panic and cause trouble for someone legally carrying who accidentally prints or displays.

I'd ban televangelist hair; with the odd exception of Rick Perry, the vast majority of people who have televangelist hair are anti-gun types.

I'd eliminate non-commissioned security altogether; if they're not armed, they're just receptionists, and if they're just receptionists, there's no excuse for not allowing them to carry under CHL like any other receptionist.

I'd make the CHL test include at least three targets and two no-shoots, with at least one reload on the clock. SA/NSA would be eliminated, and all applicants would be required to demonstrate proper handling of revolvers, semiautos, and derringers, but would be permitted to shoot either a revolver or semiauto for the qualifier. Any significant hit on a no-shoot would result in a failure. I'd still allow one immediate re-shoot, and possibly some remedial training for a second same-day re-shoot.

[Liberty]

I'd make the CHL test include at least three targets and two no-shoots, with at least one reload on the clock. SA/NSA would be eliminated, and all applicants would be required to demonstrate proper handling of revolvers, semiautos, and derringers, but would be permitted to shoot either a revolver or semiauto for the qualifier. Any significant hit on a no-shoot would result in a failure. I'd still allow one immediate re-shoot, and possibly some remedial training for a second same-day re-shoot.

Has there been issues with CHL holders making bad calls in these situations. From what I understand the shooting of innocents is not statistically an issue. I am a computer technician. One of my cardinal rules is "If its not broke don't fix it." I want to see more folks on the streets with CHLs, because it would make all of our lives safer. The more restrictive complicated or expencive it gets the more it can dissuade folks from pursuing one.

[seamusTX]

Has there been issues with CHL holders making bad calls in these situations.

No. I have never heard of a Texas CHL accidentally shooting an innocent person. In the very few cases where a CHL has to shoot, typically one to three shots are fired.

These multiple-assailant and magazine-change scenarios are appropriate to police work, but I think they are overkill for a CHL.

- Jim