TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:

RossA wrote:

ralewis wrote:
What seems to me to be the issue here is the philosophical view that the 2nd Amendment should not require a license. Practically speaking, the 2A says what the courts say it says, and the best we have now is the Licensing system which (again to me) seems a reasonable compromise that contributes to putting the public more at ease with the idea of carrying in public.

That's the biggest problem of all. Instead of just following the Constitution and not infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, we have allowed the left to force us into "reasonable compromise" of our Constitutional rights all along.
Maybe some are willing to compromise their rights, but I am not.

"A right delayed is a right denied."

Idealogical vs practical perspectives don't always result in progress IMO. Certainly have no problem with the perspective that any infringement is abhorrent, but courts have pretty consistently ruled that some infringement is ok with respect to 'rights'. As a philosophical position to win elections and advance policy positions, I think it's a fine strategy. At the end of the day, you have to deal with the world the way it is.

Ruark wrote:I personally don't think 1911 will pass. It's just too messy in more ways than I care to describe here.

doncb wrote: I've said it before, politicians are only interested in themselves and don't give a you know what about the people they represent. Lot of good it does to have a majority.

That's pretty much it. It's all about ego, campaign contributions, getting invited to the correct barbecues, and re-election.

Another thing about this whole fiasco is that it shows the relative powerlessness of the governor's office. Here we have perhaps the most pro-gun governor in Texas history, yet he has no influence whatsover on this whole process, except to sign a bill when the lege is done with it.

I'll add that it would't break my heart if this did not pass. I fear several unintended consequences with HB1911 passing.

Seems to me there is philosophical principle in play here that is anti-license. To me, (especially with the requirement that you need to meet the same qualifications for a LTC) it seems SB16 that drastically reduces the fees accomplishes almost the same thing as HB1911. You are basically paying $40 to carry some more places.

What seems to me to be the issue here is the philosophical view that the 2nd Amendment should not require a license. Practically speaking, the 2A says what the courts say it says, and the best we have now is the Licensing system which (again to me) seems a reasonable compromise that contributes to putting the public more at ease with the idea of carrying in public.

Scott Farkus wrote:

ralewis wrote:Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.

And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.

Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.

I hear you. I haven't followed the legislative stuff as closely this session as I usually do but this whole CC issue has been confusing to me. I had pretty much assumed that after the knock-down drag-out it took to get OC last time, there wouldn't be any political capital left for another high-profile fight, and so an HB560 type bill could quietly slip in under the radar. I guess since several other states have adopted CC in the interim, we decided the time was right? I don't know, but I trust our political folks who know what to push and when and this is where we are right now. I do wish there would have been some kind of compromise package presented that would get some other things (like closing the government building loophole), but we'll see.

What else could possibly be "on deck" if we get constitutional carry? We already knocked out Open Carry and Campus Carry - I can't think of any other elephants in the room.

Oh those elephants are sneaky and creep up slowly but forcefully.

I spend a month in PA every year, and carry while there every day. I just wish TX would aspire to this usually blue (but thankfully RED this cycle) state off limits locations where you can carry in a bar and sporting event. Also, signs have no force of law there, and you have to be asked to leave before it's a crime. I understand why we did what we did here in TX, but my PA data point influences my opinion on where I'd prefer TX end up.

Scott Farkus wrote:

ralewis wrote:Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.

And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.

Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.

I hear you. I haven't followed the legislative stuff as closely this session as I usually do but this whole CC issue has been confusing to me. I had pretty much assumed that after the knock-down drag-out it took to get OC last time, there wouldn't be any political capital left for another high-profile fight, and so an HB560 type bill could quietly slip in under the radar. I guess since several other states have adopted CC in the interim, we decided the time was right? I don't know, but I trust our political folks who know what to push and when and this is where we are right now. I do wish there would have been some kind of compromise package presented that would get some other things (like closing the government building loophole), but we'll see.

What else could possibly be "on deck" if we get constitutional carry? We already knocked out Open Carry and Campus Carry - I can't think of any other elephants in the room.

Oh those elephants are sneaky and creep up slowly but forcefully.

I spend a month in PA every year, and carry while there every day. I just wish TX would aspire this usually blue (but thankfully RED this cycle) state off limits locations where you can carry in a bar and sporting event. Also, signs have no force of law there, and you have to be asked to leave before it's a crime. I understand why we did what we did here in TX, but my PA data point influences my opinion on where I'd prefer TX end up.

Scott Farkus wrote:

ralewis wrote:My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.

We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.

I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.

I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.

At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.

Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.

And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.

Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.

allisji wrote:

Liberty wrote:I sure hope that the 30.06 wording isn't a poison pill. If this is the wording the bill must be stopped.

CHL holders will big time losers with the now smaller easier signs. Any bill messing with the 30/06 signs was dangerous for us. The one sign does all makes it even more tempting for the gun banners. Is it too late to stop this bill? Is TSRA still supporting it?

Good bill gone bad!

I was thinking the same thing. I would think that property owner's would want a way to ban unlicensed carry while allowing licensed carry.

Anti-gun groups would do the same thing that they did before Open Carry become effective. They will use fear and shame tactics to convince many many more businesses to post the 30.06/30.07 signs because the businesses need to ban UNLICENSED carry. Of course we know that it will impact people living in the big cities more than it will impact people living in smaller towns. It seems very unfortunate that the committee decided to apply 30.06/30.07 to unlicensed carry.

My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.

We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.

I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.