TexasCHLforum.com

VM, yet another post that you and I agree with... How it applies, I don't have a clue...

E.Marquez wrote: Your pont of being able to carry a long gun Everywhere.. anywhere because of what is in the 2nd amendment does not prove to be true or realistic, in the reality we live in. I'm guessing since the days or Kennedy, or maybe Lincoln.. you have not been able to "bear arms" near the president... even though the 2nd amendment says what it does.
There are many more places you may not "bare arms" these days for sure.. and I don't like it much myself But my not likening it does not change the reality of it.

I agree with you mostly... I wouldn't compare it to yelling "fire" in a 1st amendment context, as we've pretty much ruled that out as protected speech.

And to be reasonable, I don't expect the 2nd amendment to apply "everywhere" - I'm not that much of a constitutional nut. I wouldn't expect it to apply to many places - maybe the same list that CHL does not apply to.
However, I do expect that it should apply to my ability to walk down the street (on the way to my neighbors house for a good cleaning). And I do expect it to apply to my ability to carry it from a public parking area to a vehicle that is waiting for me. Instead, I choose to hide it in a case... And think long and hard about calling ahead even if it's in that case to indicate that I'm not a threat because I'm worried about that LEO encounter.

E.Marquez wrote: Do you know of a case where a Hunter, or someone going to the range, gun store, selling a rifle in a public place, ect was cited?
If you do, please post the link..
More so, while there have been a few case of activists being cited.. for violation of 42.01.. has there been any convection's? If so, please cite the case for my edification..

I can't cite any. I can site youtube videos where people called local municipal PDs to indicate that they were going to peacefully carry a long gun, and LEOs indicated that if they got a call they would arrest for disturbing the peace. For me, that's enough.

The problem with the arrest, to me, isn't loss of the CHL. It's that even the charge is massively punitive by nature - it's very likely to impact my employ-ability for a very long time, even assuming the charge gets tossed.

texanjoker wrote: There is a new "2nd amendment course" floating around. I am dying to sign up. I want to hear what they say. This is for LEO's.

Honestly, I don't think it will matter. The law is very clear on the matter and it's not like LEOs charge people with "unlawful carry" of long guns in these situations. I have some amount of sympathy for LEO in this space - they're expected to keep the peace and a bunch of calls just eat resources. So instead, they'll charge someone with "disturbing the peace" - I can't really see a downside on the LEO side for doing so. The charge passes the smell test, it solves the immediate problem, and punitively shows the not-so-smart long gun person who has the pants.

I've read legislation of other states that explicitly forbid this sort of thing but we don't have it in Texas. I don't hold LEO's responsible. We are the voting group that needs to feel safe at the cost of billions of tax dollars (TSA, NSA spying, etc) and we're willing to throw in some of our liberty in exchange for that fuzzy feeling.

VMI77 wrote:there are states that viciously target law abiding gun owners, like New York and New Jersey and Texas isn't one of them. I believe law for law, common sense is more likely to be applied in a State like Texas than one like New Jersey.

I know of some awful charges in NJ, but those charges stemmed from aggressive gun laws enacted by a liberal state. The laws didn't make a lot of sense (to me) - but I recognize them as law. The cases that I know about the gun owners didn't follow the laws of that state. Do you mean that liberal states tend towards more firearms restrictions? That I can get behind.

I'm not sure that I believe that liberal governments choose to go after law-abiding citizens more than conservative ones. IE - I'm much more wary of a trip through Williamson county than I am in Travis county. It's pretty well documented that the hammer of "justice" is much more costly in Williamson county. My blood pressure is much higher if I'm stopped up there than it is in Travis county.

I made trips through "restrictive" states this year: Illinois, I disassembled firearms, separated them from ammunition, locked them in cases, and put them in storage where I couldn't get to them from the vehicle. New Jersey - I didn't risk it at all, no firearms period...

I agree with you, other than insinuating that the political demographics are to blame.
Round Rock is conservative, handdog still got arrested.

bayouhazard wrote:I think arresting people carrying in school zones under MPA is a better use of time than hassling people legally open carrying long guns.

Where I live, a new school is going up.
That school is on the only road in/out of one small town as well as my home. Anyone in the area who is involved in hunting or sport shooting will be in violation of this law unless they have a CHL.

IMHO, this is where LEO discretion should play... Otherwise, stopping cars / trucks along this single road and asking if there are weapons in the vehicle provide a very real reason why you might not want to be truthful.

It's interesting. A school zone (new school) is about to sit between the means into and out of a community where I live. It'll mean that we're looking at least 50k people going through that area (at least) per year.. Likely many more.
A assume active/inactive school zone makes no difference?