Distressed about lack of Constitutional Carry Support (Long)

[cirus]

20 to 25% failure rate on the range. I average 2 to 3 students out of 10 who fail their proficiency test. Everything from simply not scoring enough points on the target to simply not able to operate their firearm. I have seen everything from trying to load ammo in the magazines backwards, inserting mags backwards, unable to remove magazines because they don't know where the mag release is, unable to rack the slide and the list goes on. Last weekend alone I had to ask 2 students to please leave the range due to being a danger to themselves or others. I get at least 2 students per weekend who have to rent a gun at the range to take their test because they don't have one, students who have NEVER held a gun in their life trying to qualify...

I'm glad you fail them. People want the plastic without putting in the slightest amount of work - nuh-uh.

While I want Constitutional Carry, I'm aware that it means we'll have a lot of incompetents wandering around.

So your alright with this same person that just failed their chl class and being denied a license to constitutionally carry in Texas? So basically the incompetents will be able to legally carry in Texas without a license but if they want to travel to another state they will need to pass the chl class?

[chasfm11]

So your alright with this same person that just failed their chl class and being denied a license to constitutionally carry in Texas? So basically the incompetents will be able to legally carry in Texas without a license but if they want to travel to another state they will need to pass the chl class?

The incompetents carry TODAY. There are people without licenses who carry guns. Some but not all of them have criminal histories. They carry to other States. Some of them drive semi-trucks.

Here is what I believe. For every 1 incompetent person who should never touch a firearm, there are 100 people who if they had one are smart enough to at least handle it properly and not accidentally shoot others. Many of those people, even if Constitutional Carry passes, are worried enough that they are not going to carry their guns every day. 50% of the people with LTCs don't do that either. My guess is that there might be a growth of 5% of guns carried with CC over what there is today. A year from now, 60% of the population will not know anything about it passing.

[cirus]

I'm all for cc but I guess what puzzles me is why everyone is so exited about it passing with the direction this country is headed. Ammo is hard to get and gun sales are through the roof. People are buying body armor and other prepping supplies. This law won't mean anything if this country goes down the tubes. In the big scheme of things cc means nothing. If we survive this and get back to normal I'll be more interested.

[03Lightningrocks]

One either believes in the constitution or they don't. There is no luke warm with qualifiers.

[K.Mooneyham]

I'm all for cc but I guess what puzzles me is why everyone is so exited about it passing with the direction this country is headed. Ammo is hard to get and gun sales are through the roof. People are buying body armor and other prepping supplies. This law won't mean anything if this country goes down the tubes. In the big scheme of things cc means nothing. If we survive this and get back to normal I'll be more interested.

As I stated before, IMHO, passing permitless/Constitutional Carry is about sending a message as much as it is anything else. Texas is being derided as NOT "2A friendly" when compared to some other states, and that is NOT an image we want. I don't want our state attracting more and more people who hate the right of the people to keep AND bear arms. They want to come here for jobs, "cheap" housing, etc, but then again, they want all the "comfort" of the statist laws of the places they left behind. Again, no thanks. They want that garbage, they need to stay where they are. Passing Constitutional Carry might change at least a few minds of those thinking about coming here and changing things for the worse.

[ELB]

Studies by Lott and Cramer have shown there are thousands of defensive gun uses per year, most of which don't make much news because often the gun is not fired at all. In any case, the vast majority of those are not license holders or training aficionados, they are people who had a gun when they needed it and in vast majority of cases it came out OK for them. Under con carry there will be some bad instances, but the vast majority will get by ok and probably not even make use of their right, leaving the gun at home or in the car.

Con Carry has been the law in at least 17 states prior to this year, in some cases for years and decades. If "incompetents" carrying under con carry laws were a big deal the Mad Moms and the Art Acevidos and the Harris County Sheriff and their ilk would have actual statistics to quote at the Legislature... BUT THEY DON'T. Neither do the ones in this thread clucking about "anyone." People just hypothesize about "the other guy."

I will keep my LTC current so as to be legal in other states (and more places in this state), but it should not be considered some sort of merit badge from the state that says I am a good enough boy to carry, which seems to be the view of some.

[AndyC1911]

I'm glad you fail them. People want the plastic without putting in the slightest amount of work - nuh-uh.

While I want Constitutional Carry, I'm aware that it means we'll have a lot of incompetents wandering around.

So your alright with this same person that just failed their chl class and being denied a license to constitutionally carry in Texas?

Yes, because it's their Constitutional right to do so - keep and BEAR arms, remember? - along with its concomitant responsibilities, which is the unspoken but critical component. You do realize said incompetents currently can legally carry in their homes and vehicles RIGHT NOW, right? That includes grandma who might not be able to see well enough to hit inside the 8-ring at 15 yards but sure as heck can stick a revolver in a rapist's ribs at halitosis range.

When I carried legally for a few decades in South Africa, there was no training course in order to carry - we devoured everything we could read regarding the law of self-defense, knowing full well that what we didn't know would bite us in the behind. A personal anecdote is no proof of anything of consequence, of course, but an entire country made it work so...

So basically the incompetents will be able to legally carry in Texas without a license but if they want to travel to another state they will need to pass the chl class?

You're moving the goalposts here; I wasn't referring to other states at all, but if they "want to travel to another state", that's their problem. Personally I'd like to see mandatory classes gone in every state, yet like most everyone else I'd highly encourage anyone to get as much training as they can in the areas of safe gun-handling and legal issues.

[Rafe]

Here's an idea. Jonathan Swift might call it "a modest proposal." President Biden is printing money faster than any president in history. He and Kamala want to send $800 billion of your tax dollars to Central America to help fix the "root causes" of illegal immigration. On guns, though, the plan is not to spend money but to restrict your rights and make honest, law-abiding citizens into criminals by legislation.

So... How about we not send all those billions to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--where they will be appreciated by the respective governmental officials, but do absolutely zip to quell illegal immigration to the U.S.--and instead earmark a measly $50 billion for a national firearms training initiative? Help us correctly exercise a right that's already enshrined in the Constitution. Make permitless carry available to anyone who is legally able to own a gun, and then leverage the many thousands of concealed carry and NRA certified trainers nationwide to offer government-paid, free-to-the public education. Optional, but free. And start 'em young...like our ancestors used to do before there were population centers densely packed with several millions of people...you know, like parents did back before there was even the term "mass shooting." School programs; bring back Eddie the Eagle into elementary schools; reintroduce airgun and NRA competitions in middle- and high-schools; foster sport shooters and our next Olympians.

Offer a structured plan nationwide with multiple courses around firearm safety, firearm maintenance; firearm use and administrative handling; the practicalities and responsibilities of carrying a firearm; self-defense inside and outside the home; the law of defensive use of firearms, etc. The instructors and the ranges bill the federal government for approved courses. Outside of school settings, all students over the age of 18 welcome free of charge (they provide, rent, or pay for firearms and ammunition, of course) provided they are legally eligible to use/own a firearm and, say, pass an NICS check first. Work a deal with IDPA, USPSA, and other competitive shooting organizations to provide memberships billed to the government but free to the public.

Instructors would get more work than ever before, and in a relatively short period of time we would develop millions more honest, law-abiding citizens who have a much higher level of training and awareness about firearms. We've already--going by NICS numbers alone--seen gun sales shatter all-time records almost month-over-month. Let's train 'em up, not criminalize 'em! There would still be gang violence, which accounts for the large majority of shootings, but the gangs and the felons and the terrorists would start to learn, of the 197 million people in the U.S. over 21 years of age, that, say, one in every 7 or 8 has had firearms training and may be carrying. You want a crime deterrent and a mass shooting deterrent? There you go. Reduce target-rich, low-threat environments. There's a reason there are no mass shootings at busy gun ranges.

That's a national gun program I could get behind.

[Jusme]

Here's an idea. Jonathan Swift might call it "a modest proposal." President Biden is printing money faster than any president in history. He and Kamala want to send $800 billion of your tax dollars to Central America to help fix the "root causes" of illegal immigration. On guns, though, the plan is not to spend money but to restrict your rights and make honest, law-abiding citizens into criminals by legislation.

So... How about we not send all those billions to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--where they will be appreciated by the respective governmental officials, but do absolutely zip to quell illegal immigration to the U.S.--and instead earmark a measly $50 billion for a national firearms training initiative? Help us correctly exercise a right that's already enshrined in the Constitution. Make permitless carry available to anyone who is legally able to own a gun, and then leverage the many thousands of concealed carry and NRA certified trainers nationwide to offer government-paid, free-to-the public education. Optional, but free. And start 'em young...like our ancestors used to do before there were population centers densely packed with several millions of people...you know, like parents did back before there was even the term "mass shooting." School programs; bring back Eddie the Eagle into elementary schools; reintroduce airgun and NRA competitions in middle- and high-schools; foster sport shooters and our next Olympians.

Offer a structured plan nationwide with multiple courses around firearm safety, firearm maintenance; firearm use and administrative handling; the practicalities and responsibilities of carrying a firearm; self-defense inside and outside the home; the law of defensive use of firearms, etc. The instructors and the ranges bill the federal government for approved courses. Outside of school settings, all students over the age of 18 welcome free of charge (they provide, rent, or pay for firearms and ammunition, of course) provided they are legally eligible to use/own a firearm and, say, pass an NICS check first. Work a deal with IDPA, USPSA, and other competitive shooting organizations to provide memberships billed to the government but free to the public.

Instructors would get more work than ever before, and in a relatively short period of time we would develop millions more honest, law-abiding citizens who have a much higher level of training and awareness about firearms. We've already--going by NICS numbers alone--seen gun sales shatter all-time records almost month-over-month. Let's train 'em up, not criminalize 'em! There would still be gang violence, which accounts for the large majority of shootings, but the gangs and the felons and the terrorists would start to learn, of the 197 million people in the U.S. over 21 years of age, that, say, one in every 7 or 8 has had firearms training and may be carrying. You want a crime deterrent and a mass shooting deterrent? There you go. Reduce target-rich, low-threat environments. There's a reason there are no mass shootings at busy gun ranges.

That's a national gun program I could get behind.

Exactly this!!

While I know it’s a pipe dream, and any government run program, is rife for corruption, I had this exact thought, yesterday. One problem I see, is that the government, would want an accounting of everyone trained. Which would amount to a gun registry list, whether the trainees actually own a gun or not. If we could, through some magic time of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches being a super majority, of true Constitutionalists, and got something like this pushed through, it would quickly be seized upon when that majority, is no longer there. JMHO

[Soccerdad1995]

Right now, a person without a LTC (who can legally own a firearm) can carry in their house / property. They can carry between their house and their vehicle. They can carry between their vehicle and their place of work if their boss is good with it, and if the boss says no, then both licensed and unlicensed cannot carry there. They can carry from their car to a hotel room, and back. The unlicensed person can carry from their car to the range, and back to their car.

I'd argue that this bill would really add at most 5-10% additional carry opportunities (by time) for unlicensed individuals. So if we are really worried about unlicensed people not knowing how to be safe with guns, we should be worried about that right now.

[Mxrdad]

Let's see:
1. The right to keep and bear arms shall be dependent upon One's training.
2. The right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd one sounds familiar for some reason.