TexasCHLforum.com

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.

warnmar10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:Realistically, how many people who take a LTC class leave without a certificate of successful completion? The class requirements are anything but rigorous. So on the one hand I would argue the licensing requirements are wholly inadequate but I can't off hand think of another unalienable and Constitutionally protected right for which a license is required.

I suppose my compromise would be Constitutional carry except where currently prohibited and carry anywhere a peace officer can with a license, the license being a little more than just a silly test for which the answers are obvious and a shooting test that is so easy that most first time shooters can pass it.

Sense the testing is so silly. Would you want someone who can't pass it to carry?

Show me someone who couldn't pass the test and I'll think about it.

I've taken the class and test twice. The first time I passed but never got around to turning in my paperwork and after a couple of years it was too late. I passed the second time too and about 30 days later I had my CHL. There were no failures in either class I took. In both classes there were first time, (literally first time,) shooters who passed the shooting test. I would argue the test is a formality that could be done away with. -- OR -- If we're going to require training and testing it should be meaningful training and meaningful testing.

Having said all that, what is it like in the states that have Constitutional carry? Is it all Dodge City and blood in the streets in those states now?