TexasCHLforum.com

OlBill wrote:
Soldiers can be politically active, they must can't do it in uniform.

I didn't give up any 2nd Amendment rights more than a civilian. I had a permit from the state and carried all the time.

I got married twice and didn't get permission either time.

Right to live?

There's a lot if misconceptions in your post.

I got out in 1980. Maybe things have changed since. Thousands on secret VA waiting lists now doesn't sound like health care needs are being met for our vets. I also lived on base and didn't have those 2A rights. You carried on base? Not in any base I was ever in. You think your medical care was state of the art? I can tell you it wasn't from direct experience. Adequate but not state of the art. Why do you think we have "Wounded Warrior" asking for money? All this needs to be a different thread though as off topic.

OlBill wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Every adult has the inherent right to vote, carry a gun, speak out on political and other matters, etc. So given that these are rights we all have, if the state believes that education is needed to exercise them in a safe and responsible manner, then the state should include those education requirements in our standard curriculums.

Agree with much of what you say. But, have you ever been in the military? You give up many of your inherent rights serving your country.

What rights did I give up?

Were you active duty? If so, you gave up the right to put a political bumper sticker on your car, you gave up the right to be politically active, you gave up many of your 2A rights, you gave up the right to even get married without permission of your CO, you gave up the right of free speech essentially. You gave up these rights while active duty. For many you also gave up the right to vote especially if your mail in ballot never got in while overseas. Many gave up their right to live. Certainly many gave up and still don't have their right to promised health care. When I left the service I was reminded that I would not be able to get a haircut so inexpensively in the civilian world. I did not consider that an inducement to staying in.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Every adult has the inherent right to vote, carry a gun, speak out on political and other matters, etc. So given that these are rights we all have, if the state believes that education is needed to exercise them in a safe and responsible manner, then the state should include those education requirements in our standard curriculums.

Agree with much of what you say. But, have you ever been in the military? You give up many of your inherent rights serving your country.

Yes. I spent 4 years in the military and I knowingly chose to temporarily give up some of my rights for that opportunity.

I don't understand what this type of voluntarily decision has to do with the rights that we inherently have as U.S. citizens. And yes, I understand and agree with the right of the government to forcibly take away some rights if you have been convicted of a felony, etc.

The argument that I was responding to was along the lines of "yes, we have rights, but the exercise of some rights is potentially dangerous, so we should educate people on how to exercise them responsibly". I agree with this sentiment 100%. Since we are talking about rights that we are all born with, then I think the necessary education should be a part of our required curriculum in every school. This should include, but not be limited to civics education so people can exercise their right to vote in a responsible manner, and the aspects of gun related training I mentioned so we can all exercise our right to keep and bear arms in a responsible manner.

I agree with you. Just pointing out that our inherent rights are not absolute, our military people do not have many of them and although I was a volunteer it was a time that the military was not all volunteer. I would love to see gun safety taught in school. We would still be talking the King's English if our forefathers didn't know how to use their guns.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Every adult has the inherent right to vote, carry a gun, speak out on political and other matters, etc. So given that these are rights we all have, if the state believes that education is needed to exercise them in a safe and responsible manner, then the state should include those education requirements in our standard curriculums.

Agree with much of what you say. But, have you ever been in the military? You give up many of your inherent rights serving your country.

TexasRedneck wrote:

Ruark wrote:

TexasRedneck wrote:...the 30.06 sign postings have continued to increase ...

That's another thing that worries me. A senator's assistant told me last year that if we were so concerned about the explosion in 06 signs after the last session, we should have left well enough alone. Before the last session, 06 signs were a quiet, background issue. Most people didn't even know what it was. Then all the open carry foofooraw called huge amounts of attention to the signage issue, and suddenly businesses that had never heard of them were posting them by their front doors. I hope all the 560/375/1911 noise this session doesn't kick it up yet another level.

All the more reason that we need to work towards engaging the owners of these businesses as to educating them with regards as to just how SAFE a customer someone with a LTC is, and why it's in their best interest NOT to keep them out. I saw the same proliferation back in '95, then they gradually tapered off, and most businesses started removing them. Given time, I think the same thing will happen again - ESPECIALLY if something happens to require rewording of the signs. At that point, I think a lot of the businesses will simply decide it's more hassle than it's worth and leave 'em down, or leave the old signs up (and therefore negating their legality, as so many have over the years).

I personally don't think "educating" businesses, except in rare circumstances, does anything. Perhaps someday we can get legislation to end 30.06 (and maybe 51% alcohol) signage. What's concealed is concealed. Once that 30.06 sign is plastered on that glass doorway it is hard to remove.

ScottDLS wrote:Any 18 year old can walk into a sporting goods store and buy an AR15 and ammunition with no training requirement whatsoever. They can then carry it on or about their person throughout Texas without a license. This has been the case with long guns since at least 1836, so what's so special about carrying a handgun (arguably much less deadly) that requires mandatory training?

What they can not do though is use that AR15 for hunting without a state hunting license and without a state mandated hunter safety course. One could argue that the ability to feed one's family is a constitutional right too. There are so many good arguments for both sides. I guess the clincher is that we allow carry in your car for everyone (that is legal) and there hasn't been a problem. I just wish gun safety would be taught in school at least 2 years before safe sex and that trap and skeet should be offered as sporting events just like football.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

I see your point from a pragmatic perspective. But how do you possibly implement this requirement without also requiring some form of licensing or registration? Also, what is unique about the people of Texas that makes you believe we need this provision here? There are several other states that have no such provision. Are those folks more friendly to gun rights than our fellow Texans?

I would also add that every time I hear Nancy Pelosi speak, I realize there are yahoos out there that don't know, or don't care about, the basic principles that underpin our Republic. But I still think they should be allowed to vote. I still contend that such people are infinitely more dangerous than any one person with a gun.

All good arguments. In practical terms though I don't know if we will get constitutional carry without some education certificate or something to that effect. Perhaps having "Veteran" on your drivers license (even though I had no firearm training in my military service aside from watching an AR-15 get fired once). Perhaps requiring everyone have served their country in some manner with a notation "Served" on their DL. Perhaps requiring firearm safety in schools if you were born before a certain date and grandfather old foggies like me. Kind of like hunter safety. As far as yahoos voting, I would impose a standard. I think though you need to go one step at a time on this just like with LTC people and showing how reliable they are with really no open carry/concealed carry problems.

How about this for a possible compromise? If you are carrying and violate some other law, you can get cited for illegal carry. But if you can later supply the court with 2 receipts from a gun range during the preceding 12 month period, those charges are dismissed. Otherwise you face a maximum $100 penalty (more than double what the range sessions would have cost, so a good deterrent). This assumes that you can otherwise legally carry a gun (not a felon, over 21, etc).

That would avoid the need for registration or licensing, and also avoid overzealous cops issuing citations to everyone they see openly carrying.

Works for me. As I said "all good arguments". Now the voting requirement and some level of intelligence.....

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

I see your point from a pragmatic perspective. But how do you possibly implement this requirement without also requiring some form of licensing or registration? Also, what is unique about the people of Texas that makes you believe we need this provision here? There are several other states that have no such provision. Are those folks more friendly to gun rights than our fellow Texans?

I would also add that every time I hear Nancy Pelosi speak, I realize there are yahoos out there that don't know, or don't care about, the basic principles that underpin our Republic. But I still think they should be allowed to vote. I still contend that such people are infinitely more dangerous than any one person with a gun.

All good arguments. In practical terms though I don't know if we will get constitutional carry without some education certificate or something to that effect. Perhaps having "Veteran" on your drivers license (even though I had no firearm training in my military service aside from watching an AR-15 get fired once). Perhaps requiring everyone have served their country in some manner with a notation "Served" on their DL. Perhaps requiring firearm safety in schools if you were born before a certain date and grandfather old foggies like me. Kind of like hunter safety. As far as yahoos voting, I would impose a standard. I think though you need to go one step at a time on this just like with LTC people and showing how reliable they are with really no open carry/concealed carry problems.

All are excellent arguments. Hard to refute either side. The reality of the world is that as much as we would like our unlimited right to constitutional carry I don't think it will happen. For multiple rights we already concede that they are not absolute. By precedent we accepted limits on our rights. Minors and guns, yelling fire, etc. I believe that constitutional carry stands a much better chance of passage with some minimal basic training requirement. Don't forget, we are dealing with legislators and the people they represent. We can try of course taking this to the supreme court but they have certainly put limits on our 2nd amendment rights and as I said with Obamacare, our right to Life without taxation for living, the Obamacare mandate. I still feel more comfortable knowing that when I am in the presence of other people that are carrying they have had some proficiency with a firearm. Your right to carry and my right to feel a level of safety and comfort. Every time I drive on our great highways and see bullet holes in those highway signs I know that there are yahoos out there that don't know gun safety and don't care if their bullet hits a car or house or a person.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we are confusing what people should do with what they should be required to do. Personally, I think that people should do the following:

Take a few parenting classes before they have a kid

Get some pre-marital counseling before they get married

Educate themselves on the issues and candidates before they vote

Get some gun safety, proficiency, and legal training before they decide to carry a gun

But I DO NOT think that the government should mandate that people do any of the above. Why? Because we are talking about the exercise of fundamental, individual rights. Living in a free society means that we will have some irresponsible people, unfortunately. But IMHO that is vastly better than the alternative of living in a nanny state.

Others may disagree, but I would at least ask that we please not conflate the exercise of a right, such as those listed above, with the exercise of a privilege, such as driving (to use one oft quoted example).

Just to be a devils advocate because I can't refute your logic, is there any stronger "right" than life and the ability to take your first breath? According to Obamacare and the Supreme Court, at your first breath you must get insurance or pay a TAX. The individual mandate and I hope that it is Trumpated completely. So, right now, life is taxed and the Supremes say it is constitutional. Again, as devils advocate, there can be some minimal mandated training for gun safety. If they can mandate "life" they can mandate anything. Devils advocate now. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

jkurtz wrote:
Compared to any reputable defensive handgun training. The LTC course basically teaches you how to use a gun at a range, which is great for some people. It does not provide much in terms of education or training for using a gun in a real world scenario where deadly force is necessary and justified. So my point was,if training has to be mandatory (which I don't think it should be), it should be applicable to the real world outside of a static range.

This is where I believe you are wrong. The LTC course doesn't teach you how to use a gun at a range, it tests your proficiency. You must get a certain score to pass and in actuality for some at my class it was firearm instruction too but if I understand it the range exposure is to test proficiency. I agree it is not defensive training.

It is very difficult for me to argue for a mandated minimum training before constitutional carry because there are some very good arguments on this post against it such as long gun carry, motor vehicle act, etc. When I shoot at a range I see that many people shooting just do not know basic gun safety. It's a fact and it puts me and mine at risk being around them. That's why many ranges have a range safety officer, where I go it is left to the people at the range to appoint one person to do that. Although I have worked with my daughters on gun safety neither of them can safely use a gun and I teach my grandson as my daughter would not be able to adequately teach gun handling. Just the way it is. My wife could teach him. If my daughters wanted to carry they would need considerable instruction first, by me or whatever. I don't know what is involved with the hunter safety program but it applies to all people in Texas under a certain age and they can't get a hunting license without it. I believe Texas considers hunting a constitutional right. There have always been limits on rights. As of today I think we still have a voter ID requirement (which I agree with) to vote. Still, there are many good arguments both ways. I guess that the problem most people have is mandating some level of government required training. How about then we do something like for sale of a firearm, the person has to certify that he/she proves they are Texas residents, not a felon, over a certain age and "has had some training (my addition)" in use of such firearm before they will constitutional carry. The reality of course is that we will have a bunch of yahoos carrying everywhere including when they are "not sober" and possible injuring others. Just like DUI drivers kill people. Of course an exam doesn't prevent this behavior which goes back to my original point that it is hard to argue the virtues either way. I would just "feel better" if I knew the guy next to me had some training with the safe use of a gun. When I took my CHL the instructor had to help some students which is why it was safe for me to fire my gun with them at my left or right side. I don't really care if a person knows how to use a saw or screwdriver. The risk of me being killed by an inexperienced screwdriver user is slim to none. That's just me. I think the best argument for a level of government training is the LTC holder's excellent record of safety in Texas. We all know that we as a group have an excellent record and I personally feel safe around a LTC holder, much more than a non-LTC person. Just look at this forum itself. A ton of experience. I learn something new every time I come here. Makes me safer. Sorry for the rambling.

jkurtz wrote:For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.

If we are going there, then there are many things that are more dangerous, which we currently allow those same kids to do. Let's take away their right to vote, to have children, to operate a motor vehicle, and to access the internet. All of those things are more potentially dangerous than having a gun.

The legislature has taken away their rights to have a gun or purchase ammo under a certain age. I guess that at age 18 (or 21) they supposedly become intelligent enough to be safe with a gun. As far as voting, I would like to see a test for voting for a lot of people. I bet you would too.

Doug.38PR wrote:

rotor wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:

Russell wrote:HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Same way I know how to eat food, mow my yard, walk through a crowd, drive a car (driving school and a plastic card didn't teach me anything), riding a bike, hooking up a dvd player to a tv, cooking food, grilling meat, changing oil, using an ax, preparing a camp fire, growing food, etc. You just live life and be prudent as you go. You don't need the state testing you on engaging in your right to life, liberty and property.

You must be a bunch smarter than me. I wasn't born with the knowledge about how to ride a bike, etc. I am also a pretty good pilot but it sure took a lot of training to get there. The state does impose limits. I am old enough to not need a hunter safety course to get a hunting license, youngsters need one. I didn't learn how to weld until I was in my 50's and took the course with a bunch of high school students in a vocational training program. The skill did not come naturally. My 10 year old grandson knows how to shoot because I taught him how to do it safely. I don't claim the state needs to control everything but to be safe with a gun there needs to be some level of training. Have you been in the military? If so you probably went to boot camp like I did to learn the basics.

My point is: being licensed didn't teach me all of those things. I learned them myself or had family or friends to guide me and went into it as a got comfortable. In short: I lived life. I DIDN'T NEED THE STATES PERMISSION TO DO IT.

People didn't need the State's blessing 200 years ago or even 100 to live life and they sure don't now. You're smarter than you think you are (and other people are smarter than you think they are)

Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.