TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Lambda Force wrote:I say teach it in school along with driver ed, sex ed, and phys ed. Maybe throw in a semester of civics while we're at it.

Problem solved.

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.

I would love to see a requirement for all children to get education on safe gun handling, carry, responsible use of force, de-escalation techniques, and marksmanship. Start at grade 3 or so and go through grade 12. The current system makes no sense because we only require training if you want to carry a gun in specific places. I carry my gun whenever I can, and 90%+ of that carry would currently be entirely legal with no LTC and no training, whatsoever.

rotor wrote:

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.

You need a hunting license to hunt with a handgun as well. I think the more apples to apples comparison is with the same use, namely carry. We have constitutional carry for long guns, but not for handguns.

And I agree with you about the priorities of our educational system. If guns are such a huge risk to children, then why would we not want to educate kids about how to mitigate the danger by learning more about safe gun handling and use? And teaching "guns are bad" should be just as unacceptable to the NEA as it would be to teach that "sex before marriage is bad", aka abstinence.

hovercat wrote:Mandatory safety courses in the schools would work, instead. We have mandatory civics and government courses.

I could get behind this compromise 100%. Constitutional carry for everyone over 18, coupled with gun safety and proficiency courses being a required part of the curriculum from grade 3 through 12. Now we just need to get the teachers unions to support this!

LucasMcCain wrote:

bigtek wrote:Despite the usual "blood in the streets" hue and cry, there don't seem to be a lot of actual problems caused by MPA.

I never thought of that with relation to unlicensed carry. That is an absolutely excellent point. Of all the places a normally law-abiding citizen might be tempted to use a gun inappropriately, "while driving a car" has to be at or near the top of the list. Yet here we are with it being a non-issue.

You could also look to stats from any of the states that currently allow non-licensed carry. Like I said up thread, there simply isn't a compelling crisis that justifies restrictions on our RKBA, IMHO.

Jusme wrote:

tommyg wrote:While I'm about as pro gun as anyone can get, I think that to carry a person should have
to at least demonstrate that He/She has a basic understanding of how to use a gun.

There are people out there that do not know how to load and fire. Licenses are needed classes
and firing tests are still needed

When I took my class and firing test I was in a special class for senior citizens and military. I was the
only senior citizen in the class. The others were Military police that wanted to carry off duty.
I did as well as the rest of them. No problem I did not mind taking the test and I had a good time taking it

tommyg, while I understand your position, the fact remains, that the right to keep and bear arms, has no such restriction (Constitutionally) Just as none of the other Constitutional rights, requires, that person demonstrate proficiency, before exercising that right. It has nothing to do with being "pro gun" or "anti gun"
The reason we have any gun control laws at all, is because those who were elected into power, decided, that because some acted irresponsibly with firearms, they were subject to control, despite a very clear and concise Constitutional Amendment forbidding the practice.

Voting, reporting, reproducing, and tweeting are all much more potentially dangerous than carrying a gun. It's a question of whether we want people to start with no rights whatsoever until they prove that they can exercise those rights responsibly.

If we had a major issue with accidental / negligent shootings that could be solved with additional training, then I might be OK with this type of requirement. But the simple matter is that there is no underlying crisis here. The standard for the restriction of our basic human rights should be high. And it simply has not been met when it comes to the RKBA.

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.

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.

tbrown wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I further believe that governments, by definition, only have the powers that the people have delegated. And if any government ever gets sidetracked into thinking that they have inherent authority not granted by the people, such that the government actually becomes destructive of the people's God given rights (as opposed to just balancing competing rights), then the people have every right to abolish that government, by force if needed, and create a new government in it's place. If it comes to this, then the people should be able to clearly lay out their thought process and how they reached such a drastic conclusion, especially if the government in question is one that was long established.

Maybe I'm getting old but it seems to me that more than 3/4 of the federal laws have no basis in the actual constitution, as written and legitimately amended. At times the balance seems closer to 90% unconstitutional. If so, then such a government has no moral authority nor legal authority under said constitution.

I think you have the percentage range about right (75% - 90% of laws having no basis in the Constitution).

IMHO, there are two primary drivers of this. We have a judiciary branch that tends to either be too weak to stand up to the other branches (ACA), or exhibits activism by deciding the outcome they want and then twisting the law to match that predetermined, desired, outcome (Roe v Wade, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome, it is a great example of this twisting, another example is the all encompassing interstate commerce clause).

The second driver is just human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As a result, we have had legislators and Presidents who are paid lackeys of those with money, and no judiciary to limit what they can do.

If you take a piece of paper and lay out the grievances expressed in the Declaration of Independence alongside the legitimate grievances that folks have today, you may likely reach a very startling conclusion.

Well here's what I believe.

I believe that we are endowed by our creator with a number of inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are many others, including a number of rights that help to ensure we can actually enjoy the listed rights (such as the RKBA which ensures our right to all three).

I also believe that we form governments for the sole purpose of protecting these rights that we were born with. Government has a role to play when the rights of two people are in conflict (e.g. it would make me happy to kill Fred). Laws are established based on a careful consideration of how we can best balance the conflicting rights at hand. And we (the people) authorize government agents, as our employees, to enforce these laws.

I further believe that governments, by definition, only have the powers that the people have delegated. And if any government ever gets sidetracked into thinking that they have inherent authority not granted by the people, such that the government actually becomes destructive of the people's God given rights (as opposed to just balancing competing rights), then the people have every right to abolish that government, by force if needed, and create a new government in it's place. If it comes to this, then the people should be able to clearly lay out their thought process and how they reached such a drastic conclusion, especially if the government in question is one that was long established.....

To be honest, my thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by some rather radical folks who all died a long time ago.

Flightmare wrote:

G26ster wrote:Why is this called "Constitutional Carry?" Does that mean anyone including those convicted of violent crimes should have the right to carry? I hope not. It doesn't matter anyway, as that is exactly what the great unwashed mass of voters will believe just from the name alone. I believe it's a terrible name.

This is why Charles prefers to simply call it "unlicensed carry".

"Unlicensed carry" has a ring of doing something wrong, at least to me. At a minimum, it presumes that the normative state is to require a license for the exercise of this right.

Couldn't we just call it a "Right to Carry" bill?

rotor wrote:

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.

Yes, and I disagree with the "life" tax just as much as I disagree with current restrictions on the RKBA. Both are unconstitutional IMHO. But I don't get the final say on that question.

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).

Alf wrote:

tommyg wrote:I think that anyone that caries should have a basic knowledge of how to handle a gun.
you need to take a driving test you should take a firing test. The test is easy for anyone that has a basic fire arms knowledge

I think that anyone that votes should have a basic knowledge of civics and economics.

Anyone who reproduces should have a basic knowledge of child rearing and a basic level of morals / ethics.

Anyone who speaks should have a basic comprehension of grammar, civility, and common sense.

When we talk about restricting the RKBA, it needs to be in the same vein as restrictions on other rights. Not restrictions on privileges such as driving. Let's make it simple. If you can legally vote, then you can legally carry a gun.

rotor wrote:

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.

We are definitely in agreement on the voting requirements. At a bare minimum, I think you should know what the position does before you are able to vote on it. I think it would also be great to require that people know the candidates positions before they vote. I am obviously not a fan of "straight ticket" voting.