TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

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.

I think you and I agree on this and most other issues. This is a point I always try to make in various discussions on legalizing behavior in one area of the country that is already legal in another. If you have real world data to look at, then a bunch of what-if arguments are moot.

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.

Lynyrd wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:I personally feel better knowing that an LTC holder has been thoroughly vetted by the state before they are allowed to carry in public.

I know I would feel better knowing voters were properly vetted before voting and if journalists were properly vetted before doing whatever journalists do.

That's fair, and I agree. The only thing that gives me pause is the mentally ill, violent felons, drug addicts, etc. Do they have a 2A right? Should they be allowed to carry in public?

Those groups are already stripped of many of their rights, including the right to own a gun, if I'm not mistaken. The idea of constitutional carry is that if it is legal for one to own a gun, then it should be legal to carry that gun. Or that is my understanding, anyway.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

You can already carry a long gun without licensing or training. People used to keep rifles and shotguns in their vehicles all the time. It didn't cause problems that I am aware of.

People can keep handguns in their cars or on their persons on their own property (in Texas) without licensing or training. Again, I have not heard of this causing all kinds of problems.

We are subject to a ton of laws regarding our actions on a daily basis which we haven't been trained on, but most of us manage to be law abiding citizens.

I'm not at all arguing that training is a bad thing or unnecessary. However, I don't necessarily think that it needs to be government mandated. A comprehensive media push would take care of it for the most part. Maybe offer insurance breaks for taking classes, similar to defensive driving for auto insurance. Just from personal experience, I have found that most people that get a gun want to know the laws and feel comfortable with their weapon. They seek training without it being forced on them. I realize that's strictly anecdotal evidence, but it's what I got.

Also keep in mind that we have it quite good in the glorious state of Texas currently. In many states, it's very difficult or even impossible to carry a weapon to defend yourself. It's those areas where self defense is most regulated that would most benefit from constitutional carry.

All this said, I tend to look at things from a pretty simple viewpoint. Maybe there are problems I don't know about. Regardless, thanks for broaching the subject. I'm interested to hear what others have to say about it.