How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

[chabouk]

IMHO, constantly falling back on "RKBA is in 2A of the Constitution" for EVERY gun argument grows very tiresome for the 60% of the population that is "in the middle" on the gun debate, and really any political debate in this country (20% strongly to each side, 60% in the middle ... I won't waste time backing up that assertion; it's been discussed ad nauseum in a plethora of political analysis).

I avoid the Constitutional argument because it perpetuates the false notion that our rights come from that document, and that we only have the rights it lists.

We've seen that very thing put forth in this thread, with the argument that we have RKBA, but not the right to travel, because the former is listed in the Constitution and the latter isn't.

[frazzled]

A gun in your holster is the same as a car in your driveway: until you actually operate it, it doesn't matter how intoxicated you are. And once you do operate it (by driving or firing), you should be responsible for you actions that harm or threaten others. Driving your 4,000 pound weapon while impaired endangers others. Being a passenger in that 4,000 pound weapon while totally blotto and carrying a concealed handgun doesn't endanger anyone.

I totally disagree. Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.

indeed. Further we have rights to firearm usage under the 2nd Amendment. We don't have rights to booze or drugs. You can carry-perfectly legal, but the state has the right to say you can't be under the influence while carrying.
Cut the garbage. Guns and booze don't miz just as cars and booze don't mix. If you think you should be able to drink while caryring you need to stay home and not endanger the rest of our families-just your own.

[mr.72]

Cut the garbage. Guns and booze don't miz just as cars and booze don't mix. If you think you should be able to drink while caryring you need to stay home and not endanger the rest of our families-just your own.

I can say the same thing about "booze" mixing with all kinds of other of your rights, those protected by the Constitution as well as those you might hold dear that are not protected by the Constitution, and the argument will be just as valid.

Let's have a sobriety checkpoint at the entrance of a polling place.

Howabout you cannot exercise your freedom of speech after you have had a drink.

Or maybe you cannot be free to choose your own religion while you have been drinking.

Maybe your right to a fair trial only applies if you do not drink. Or maybe your right to raise your own children ends where your right to drink alcohol begins. Maybe even your very right to reproduce should be restricted to only those who don't drink.

This is a ridiculous argument. Drinking and driving, as an issue, has enjoyed some special status of broad and sweeping rights infringement in this country for decades. You can do anything to bend the Constitution into a complete spiral and ignore the rule of law as long as it has the intent of reducing "drunk driving". We are spreading this idealism of special-status infringement to other things as well, such as hate crimes and now even those who claim to support our right to keep and bear arms are supporting this infringement when it comes to carrying a gun. Why don't we just outlaw drinking instead? Of course, if we criminalize alcohol, then only the criminals will have alcohol.

Point is that rights infringement, overreaching government efforts to control behavior and special-class laws do not work, period. Drunk driving laws are not stopping drunk driving. Banning alcohol didn't stop the sale of alcohol. Banning carrying and drinking is not going to stop the practice. If you've ever known an alcoholic, you know good and well that stopping them from drinking from some external influence is impossible, and they are going to drink first and then add on every other thing they do in their lives. Drinking and anything doesn't really mix. But if drinking and <insert anything here> can mix, then you dang well better be able to drink and do the things that you have a Constitutionally-protected right to do. Drinking does not require one to waive their rights before they can take a drink.

[Keith B]

No matter how impaired someone's judgement and motor skills might be, the legal standard for justification does not change. You assume that people will be more likely to act without justification while intoxicated; I don't share that assumption. Sure, some might; others might have the opposite reaction and be more hesitant because they're worried about their judgement.

My point is this: no matter the degree, when you argue that carry should be prohibited because of how some people might act, you're using Brady logic. Please understand I don't mean that as a personal insult, I'm just trying to get you to see the consistency.

"Because some people might act rashly in {Circumstance X}, no one should be able to carry a gun in {Circumstance X}."
Now, for {Circumstance X}, substitute:
- while intoxicated
- after a single drop of alcohol
- at a sporting event
- at a parade
- at a political rally
- inside a 51% business, even while not drinking
- at church
- in a hospital
- unless a LEO or member of the military

See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle. Just getting behind the wheel intoxicated is illegal, even if you don't move the vehicle. The same should be with carrying. And YES it IS because alcohol or other intoxicants change mood and temperament when consumed in excess. With your argument, it should also be allowable for someone on an LSD trip, a person who is mentally unstable with paranoid Sophronia, known homicidal maniacs, etc. to have a loaded handgun in their possession. Sorry, I just don't buy it. And it is not Bradyesq thinking, just using some common sense because of those that don't or won't. You have the right to be a 2A absolutionist if you want, but I feel there are reasonable restrictions that have to be made. If all people did what was right all the time, then there would not need to be laws at all, and we all know where that would lead us. Just see my sig line on the bottom.

And, I will post no further as I have stated my view and opinion as they stand.

[texxas guy]

And if I have to give a little bit (lose the battle) to gain a lot (win the war), I'm willing to do so up to a point.

The problem is, we have already conceded the war, and we are now content to forget the irresistible irony: the very right which we have willingly given up is the one that was put in place to prevent the government from disregarding our other rights.

If I can regain the rights that are important to me, and all I have to do is pay some money for a license, shoot 50 rounds to prove my proficiency, and conceal my firearm while I carry, I'm OK with that for now. The world moves best incrementally. IMHO YMMV

This is like a wrongly-convicted man serving a life sentence in prison, saying "I am giving up on my appeal and restoration of my freedom, because at least I can get a second helping of dessert every once in a while".

It's institutional sleight of hand. They caress you with the hand you can see while they are stabbing you with the one you can't see. This is how we got here.

There was a day when you could walk into any hardware store or department store and buy a gun equivalent to modern (for the day) military arms straight across the counter with no paperwork and no government interference. There was a time in this country when corrupt politicians would fully expect that they would face a brutal, ferocious armed uprising if they tried to confiscate guns of free men. But now we are happily attached to the government's leash, jumping through hoops like a trick pony. We can engage in the theater of gun ownership, so politicians can pretend like they support rights because, see, look how many people have guns, and how great and legal and organized and documented and under the government's heel the whole operation is. This is not freedom. It is not freedom when they expect to force you to buy health insurance or face fines or jail time and we don't arm up and march in the streets demanding the heads of these tyrants. This is not the country whose forefathers drafted the Bill of Rights. Our rulers do not regard our rights as anything sacred, but only a nostalgic relic of a bygone era. This is not the country that patriots gave their lives and risked everything for 200-some years ago. This is a lot more like the countries we pat ourselves on the back for "liberating", but it's just transferring from a foolish and obvious tyranny to a new, modernized, easy to swallow tyranny that Americans who think they believe in freedom will support.

The funny thing is that we, Texans, think that we are somehow different. Even our governor makes veiled references to that-which-cannot-be-spoken. We have hyped up heroes who fought for Texas independence and were "king(s) of the wild frontier". This is no wild frontier and these heroes along with American patriots of the American Revolution have transcended from history to mythology, because we can no longer even imagine anyone who would be willing to die to preserve these freedoms. Yeah, we talk about how our men and women are going overseas to fight for "freedom" but the enemies who are successfully assaulting America are not in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's just the distraction. The enemies of American freedom have their names listed on the ballot and the rest are casting the votes. We are so anesthetized by our "security" that we cannot recognize freedom anymore, and we couldn't cope with it if we had it.

We won't fight for our freedoms because we are too afraid we are going to lose one of the floating ashes of our former liberty that we won't dare challenge and demand that our rights be recognized. This is not about restoring our rights. We have these rights, whether they are recognized or not.

If they come to confiscate your guns, are you going to risk your life to defend your right to keep them? Or are you going to hand them over? I think most of us are going to hand them over. And they know it. So we have already given up. They are taking their victory lap over and over, and we are begging to ride along.

They don't make an emoticon for the way I feel about this.

mr.72, Amen brother.....I'm right there with you!

[chabouk]

Cut the garbage. Guns and booze don't miz just as cars and booze don't mix. If you think you should be able to drink while caryring you need to stay home and not endanger the rest of our families-just your own.

If I drink at home, there are guns there. Oh, wait, there are cars there too! There are also power tools, gasoline, gunpowder, matches...

[chabouk]

See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle.

The difference is that having a gun is not the same as operating a gun. To be consistent, you should want people charged with DWI for having car keys in their pockets even if there's no evidence they intended to drive.

[Keith B]

See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle.

The difference is that having a gun is not the same as operating a gun. To be consistent, you should want people charged with DWI for having car keys in their pockets even if there's no evidence they intended to drive.

OK, one last thing; if I am out with friends, and I know one of them is going to start drinking quite a bit, I take the keys from them before they start so they won't be able to make a bad decision and potentially drive.

[A-R]

Cut the garbage. Guns and booze don't miz just as cars and booze don't mix. If you think you should be able to drink while caryring you need to stay home and not endanger the rest of our families-just your own.

I can say the same thing about "booze" mixing with all kinds of other of your rights, those protected by the Constitution as well as those you might hold dear that are not protected by the Constitution, and the argument will be just as valid.

Let's have a sobriety checkpoint at the entrance of a polling place.

I'm actually all for this one. Drunken idiots shouldn't vote. How do you think we got into this mess in the first place?

But this is not a valid comparison to drunk driving or drunk gun play because no one was ever killed by a drunk voter.

Howabout you cannot exercise your freedom of speech after you have had a drink.

A drunk with sticks and stones (or a car or a gun) may break your bones, but drunken words will never hurt you.

Or maybe you cannot be free to choose your own religion while you have been drinking.

So many jokes are set up so perfectly by that line, but forum decorum and general sense of decency prohibit me from elaborating further.

Maybe your right to a fair trial only applies if you do not drink. Or maybe your right to raise your own children ends where your right to drink alcohol begins. Maybe even your very right to reproduce should be restricted to only those who don't drink.

Your rights to drink (to excess) around children or while pregnant are already infringed. The charge is something like "endangering a child", but you gotta be pretty drunk, abusive, and stupid to be charged with it.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Agree with you there.

Drinking and driving, as an issue, has enjoyed some special status of broad and sweeping rights infringement in this country for decades. You can do anything to bend the Constitution into a complete spiral and ignore the rule of law as long as it has the intent of reducing "drunk driving". We are spreading this idealism of special-status infringement to other things as well, such as hate crimes and now even those who claim to support our right to keep and bear arms are supporting this infringement when it comes to carrying a gun. Why don't we just outlaw drinking instead? Of course, if we criminalize alcohol, then only the criminals will have alcohol.

We tried that once, and the guys with the booze also had the .45-cal machine guns. Didn't work out too well. Hey, kinda like today - the guys with the illegal drugs have the machine guns too

Point is that rights infringement, overreaching government efforts to control behavior and special-class laws do not work, period. Drunk driving laws are not stopping drunk driving. Banning alcohol didn't stop the sale of alcohol. Banning carrying and drinking is not going to stop the practice. If you've ever known an alcoholic, you know good and well that stopping them from drinking from some external influence is impossible, and they are going to drink first and then add on every other thing they do in their lives. Drinking and anything doesn't really mix. But if drinking and <insert anything here> can mix, then you dang well better be able to drink and do the things that you have a Constitutionally-protected right to do. Drinking does not require one to waive their rights before they can take a drink.

Drunk driving laws have reduced drunk driving and drunk driving related deaths. I don't have the statistics handy to prove this, but they're out there. And drunk driving laws are not strictly meant to stop alcoholics, which is a whole different class of drunk. It's meant to also stop the careless frat boy, and countless other potential drunken killers of me and my children on the roadway.

There is simply no way you can legitimately compare some supposed "right" to get drunk and do stupid things (like driving and carry a gun) with the well established right to keep and bear arms.

But if y'all want to drink and carry, I'm not going to try to stop you. When you have an "accident" and kill someone though, I hope they throw the book at you and I'll stay 1,000 away from that special building in Huntsville when they give you your justice.

[MechAg94]

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle.
The difference is that having a gun is not the same as operating a gun. To be consistent, you should want people charged with DWI for having car keys in their pockets even if there's no evidence they intended to drive.

Actually, I believe that has in fact happened. People have been cited for sitting in the driver's seat sleeping with and without the keys in the ignition. It was upheld in court if I remember correctly.

Since we seem to be on a DWI tirade, does anyone have some statistics that show what the average BAC is for drunk drivers who have caused accidents? Most of them I ever hear about are far above the current legal limit. Another question would be what percentage of them already have DWI convictions?

[marksiwel]

SO
What if?

What if you are drunk as a skunk at home, a Bad guy breaks into your house, and attacks you, you manage to grab your gun and shoot him.
The cops show up, and you are still pretty drunk.

What happens then?

[mr.72]

There is simply no way you can legitimately compare some supposed "right" to get drunk and do stupid things (like driving and carry a gun) with the well established right to keep and bear arms.

I think the point is being missed altogether but that's because when it comes to drinking, for most of us it becomes an emotional argument that has little to do with logic.

People have every right to do stupid things, including getting drunk and doing stupid things, as long as those stupid things don't wind up harming another person.

BUT THE PROBLEM with drunk driving laws and the assault on carrying a gun while drinking is that you are not prosecuting someone for actually harming another person, but you are prosecuting them because you have identified that they are in a state wherein they may potentially harm someone else. But folks, every person on earth may potentially harm someone else. Being drunk doesn't guarantee you are going to hurt somebody.

This is asinine that we prosecute people for their potential crimes. Haven't we seen "Minority Report"?

[Purplehood]

SO
What if?

What if you are drunk as a skunk at home, a Bad guy breaks into your house, and attacks you, you manage to grab your gun and shoot him.
The cops show up, and you are still pretty drunk.

What happens then?

Nothing if it is as it sounds, a righteous shoot.

[KD5NRH]

But this is not a valid comparison to drunk driving or drunk gun play because no one was ever killed by a drunk voter.

One could argue that everyone who has died as a result of misguided government action was killed by all voters collectively.

Drunk driving laws have reduced drunk driving and drunk driving related deaths.

And banning cars would reduce them even further. Banning guns might even reduce gun deaths. Then again, there are some of us who don't like the idea of giving up rights for safety.

[Keith B]

OK, this has really gone off topic (and I must admit i contributed to the off-topic portion). Let's get this back to how to improve the CHL program with constructive posts.

I, for one, think the fees should be lower and allow for earlier application on renewal.