TexasCHLforum.com

Selcouth wrote:I am nuetral in open carry and can see both sides.

If all are allowed to open carry how does LEO identify those that can not legally own a firearm? What's to say gangs do not begin open carrying to "protect" their turf? Furthermore, how are officers supposed to go about questioning those individuals when they legally can't if those individuals aren't being detained? It's almost as if laws would have to be changed allowing officers to ask for ID at any given time. But would law abiding gun owners be okay with this? I think often times we fail to consider the unintended consequences of the things we want or desire to happen.

Perish the thought that we go back to a time when our 2nd Amendment rights were not being infringed by the leftists. A time when ANYONE could carry ANYTHING. Just like the Founding Fathers INTENDED. The fact that some people would even ASK this question just shows how far down the slippery slope that they have slid.

anygunanywhere wrote:What normally happens, especially at the federal level, when taxes are cut, fees are raised. Yes, lower cost would probably result in higher numbers of CHL. However, the state does not necessarilty consider CHL as a right so you must pay a fee for a service. The service is allowing you a license to exercise what we hold as a right.

Whether it is at the state level or at the federal level, the government has an amount that they *think* that they need to operate. They will get that money one way or another. For states that do not have an income tax (like Texas), they get it from property taxes. People don't like to hear that the property tax rate is going up, so the state / county will just *say* that your property is now worth more than it was last year. That makes it so that instead of having a widespread group of people complaining about the increase in the tax rate, you have people either just accepting the government's claim that their property has increased in value or them protesting to the tax office and having to show proof that the value of their property has not increased. Some states have a lower property tax rate, but their housing prices are ridiculously inflated. Some states have a low property tax rate and low housing prices, but they have a state income tax. One way or another, they are going to get your money.

The government does not understand the concept of decreasing their spending. Personally, I think that it should all be tied to a sales tax. If the government improves the economy, people will spend more. If the government tanks the economy, then people will spend less. This gives the government incentive to improve the economy.

By voting for legislators, we are in fact *hiring* people to run the country. Is it unreasonable to expect these people to be fiscally responsible with our money?

rp_photo wrote:Given the state's otherwise pro-gun climate and the fact that many more anti states allow open carry (at least in theory), it makes no sense at all that Texas forbids it.

I'm sure there are many ongoing discussions about this, so my apologies for any duplication.

Because we are only slowly throwing off the yoke of Yankee Imperialism / Occupation that we were saddled with after the War of Northern Aggression.